Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans
Record date: 2025-08-12
( printed page 38925) Executive Order 14331 of August 7, 2025 Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1 . Purpose. Financial institutions have engaged in unacceptable practices to restrict law-abiding individuals' and businesses' access to financial services on the basis of political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities. Some financial institutions participated in Government-directed surveillance programs targeting persons participating in activities and causes commonly
What this record contains
- Federal Register document
- 2025-15341
- Publication date
- 2025-08-12
- Citation
- 90 FR 38925
- Issuing office
- Executive Office of the President
Official record excerpt
( printed page 38925) Executive Order 14331 of August 7, 2025 Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, it is hereby ordered: Section 1 . Purpose. Financial institutions have engaged in unacceptable practices to restrict law-abiding individuals' and businesses' access to financial services on the basis of political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities. Some financial institutions participated in Government-directed surveillance programs targeting persons participating in activities and causes commonly associated with conservatism and the political right following the events that occurred at or near the United States Capitol on January 6, 2021. The Federal Government suggested that such institutions flag individuals who made transactions related to companies like “Cabela's” and “Bass Pro Shop” or who made peer-to-peer payments that involved terms like “Trump” or “MAGA,” even though there was no specific evidence tying those individuals to criminal conduct. Bank regulators have used supervisory scrutiny and other influence over regulated banks to direct or otherwise encourage politicized or unlawful debanking activities. “Operation Chokepoint,” for example, was a well-documented and systemic means by which Federal regulators pushed banks to minimize their involvement with individuals and companies engaged in lawful activities and industries disfavored by regulators based on factors other than individualized, objective, risk-based standards. As a result, individuals, their businesses, and their families have been subjected to debanking on the basis of their political affiliations, religious beliefs or lawful business activities, and have suffered frozen payrolls, debt and crushing interest, and other significant harms to their livelihoods, reputations, and financial well-being. Such practices are incompatible with a free society and the principle that the provision of banking services should be based on material, measurable, and justifiable risks. Such practices, when wielded to discriminate against customers and businesses in credit transactions due to their religion, are also unlawful under the Equal Credit Opportunity Act ( 15 U.S.C. 1691 et seq. ). They further undermine public trust in banking institutions and their regulators, discriminate against political beliefs and free expression of those beliefs, and weaponize a politicized regulatory state. Sec. 2 . Policy. It is the policy of the United States that no American should be denied access to financial services because of their constitutionally or statutorily protected beliefs, affiliations, or political views, and to ensure that politicized or unlawful debanking is not used as a tool to inhibit such beliefs, affiliations, or political views. Banking decisions must instead be made on the basis of individualized, objective, and risk-based analyses. Sec. 3 . Definitions. (a) The term “politicized or unlawful debanking” refers to an act by a bank, savings association, credit union, or other financial services provider to directly or indirectly adversely restrict access to, or adversely modify the conditions of, accounts, loans, or other banking products or financial services of any customer or potential customer on the basis of the customer's or potential customer's political or religious beliefs, or on the basis of the customer's or potential customer's lawful business activities that the financial service provider disagrees with or disfavors for political reasons. ( printed page 38926) (b) The term “Federal banking regulators” refers to the Small Business Administration (SBA) and the Federal member agencies of the Financial Stability Oversight Council with supervisory and regulatory authority over banks, savings associations, or credit unions. Sec. 4 . Removing Reputation Risk and Politicized or Unlawful Debanking. (a) Within 180 days of the date of this order, each appropriate Federal banking regulator shall, to the greatest extent permitted by law, remove the use of reputation risk or equivalent concepts that could result in politicized or unlawful debanking, as well as any other considerations that could be used to engage in such debanking, from their guidance documents, manuals, and other materials (other than existing regulations or other materials requiring notice-and-comment rulemaking) used to regulate or examine financial institutions over which they have jurisdiction. The removal of such concepts shall be made clear by each appropriate Federal banking regulator through formal guidance to their examiners. The Federal banking regulators shall also consider rescinding or amending existing regulations, consistent with applicable law, to eliminate or amend any regulations
The excerpt is reproduced from the public federal record and may omit later sections, tables, signatures or attachments. Open the official source for the complete text.
Questions for accountability
- What legal authority does this economy action cite?
- Which agencies or officials were directed to act?
- What measurable implementation, cost, deadline or later court action followed?
How to use this page
This is a source-record entry, not a truth-rating by itself. It preserves the action, date and original government publication so it can be connected to later claims, implementation records, court decisions, costs and measurable outcomes. Editorial claim reviews on this site use separate finding labels and explain the evidence for those findings.