A new report from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the federal regulator responsible for supervising the nation's largest banks, concluded that all nine of the largest banks under its supervision maintained policies between 2020 and September 2025 that influenced customer access to financial services based on political, religious, or business-related factors. The report followed a review of nearly 100,000 complaints and hundreds of thousands of pages of bank records.
The findings have brought new eyes to the fundamental question that Old Glory Bank began asking, and building upon, years ago:
Should Americans have to worry that their bank may judge them based on their beliefs, affiliations, or lawful activities?
The Real Problem: Concentrated Financial Power
According to the OCC's findings, banks used broad "reputation risk" policies that, in some cases, led to customers being denied services because of political, religious, or social viewpoints, as well as involvement in lawful industries such as firearms, energy, or digital assets. These decisions were not tied to traditional measures of creditworthiness, fraud prevention, or financial risk.
The report cites examples involving organizations associated with both conservative and progressive political causes. The issue is bigger than partisan politics.
The core issue is whether a handful of massive financial institutions should have the power to determine which lawful Americans deserve access to banking and which do not.
No American should lose access to essential financial services because a bank executive, compliance team, regulator, activist group, or reputational committee disagrees with their views.
Banking is not a privilege granted by ideological gatekeepers. It is a necessity for participating in modern society.
The OCC's report did not merely document isolated account closures. It documented how subjective "reputational risk" standards evolved into institutional mechanisms capable of denying lawful Americans access to essential financial services.
According to Comptroller Jonathan V. Gould in the report, not only did debanking occur, but what began as executive decisions evolved into bureaucratic processes that made exclusion routine. He stated that banks adopted reputation-risk policies that allowed "political considerations, public opinion, and social pressures" to influence access to financial services, and that these practices became "institutionalized" through internal processes that either cut off customers directly or created enough friction to achieve the same result.
The OCC specifically highlighted coal and firearms companies as examples of lawful industries that faced restrictions unrelated to traditional financial risk. According to Comptroller Gould, some banks restricted financing for new coal operations, imposed revenue-based limits on companies connected to coal, and cited potential negative publicity and protests rather than financial risk.
The OCC also identified restrictions affecting firearms manufacturers and retailers, including an instance where a bank reportedly denied IPO-related assistance because the customer's lawful sales policies did not align with the bank's own standards.
One lesson from this report should be obvious: Americans cannot permanently rely on government administrations to protect them from political discrimination.
One administration may investigate debanking. Another may ignore it.
One regulator may prioritize fair access. Another may prioritize reputational pressure campaigns.
Political winds change. Regulatory priorities change.
What does not change is the need for Americans to have access to institutions that are committed, as a matter of principle, to serving customers regardless of their political beliefs, religious convictions, or lawful activities.
Government oversight can expose problems. It cannot eliminate them.
The most durable protection is choice.
Beyond the questions of viewpoint discrimination, the OCC findings raise another serious concern: the privacy of Americans' financial relationships.
When banks allow political, ideological, or reputational considerations to influence customer treatment, it inevitably creates questions about how customer information is being collected, analyzed, shared, and acted upon.
Americans entrust their banks with some of their most sensitive personal and financial data, and that trust should never be compromised by political agendas or external pressures.
At Old Glory Bank, protecting customer privacy is not merely a compliance obligation; it is a core principle.
We fiercely defend our customers' confidential financial information, comply with legal requirements while safeguarding individual rights, and believe Americans should never have to worry that their lawful banking activity could become the basis for political scrutiny or ideological targeting.
We state clearly and unequivocally on our website that we will not divulge private customer financial data to the government without a lawful subpoena:
IT IS OLD GLORY BANK’S UNWAVERING POLICY THAT WE WILL INFORM CUSTOMERS OF EACH SUBPOENA UNLESS EXPRESSLY PROHIBITED BY LAW (WHICH IS RARE). THEREFORE, DO NOT SEND A SUBPOENA TO OLD GLORY BANK THAT YOU DESIRE TO KEEP CONFIDENTIAL, BECAUSE WE WILL NOT KEEP IT CONFIDENTIAL.
Just as we reject the misuse of "reputational risk" as a justification for financial exclusion, we reject any culture that treats customer privacy as secondary to politics.
Trust is earned, and protecting our customers' financial privacy is one of the most important ways we earn it.
When consumers discover a company does not share their values, they have the freedom to take their business elsewhere.
Banking should be no different.
That is why the emergence of a values-based financial institution matters.
Rather than waiting for Congress, regulators, or future administrations to solve the problem, Americans can choose to bank with an institution that explicitly supports financial access and viewpoint neutrality.
This is where Old Glory Bank enters the conversation.
Old Glory Bank was founded on a simple belief: Americans should not have to fear financial discrimination because of their beliefs or lawful activities.
While many large financial institutions spent years defending reputation-risk frameworks and politically sensitive account decisions, Old Glory Bank built its brand around protecting financial freedom and serving customers who felt underserved or unwelcome elsewhere.
The OCC's findings are ultimately about more than bank accounts. Access to financial services determines whether families can buy homes, entrepreneurs can build businesses, and workers can participate fully in the economy. When those decisions become influenced by politics, public opinion, or ideological pressure, the consequences reach far beyond banking. They strike at economic freedom itself.
For customers concerned about debanking, the solution is not simply hoping regulators remain vigilant.
The solution is exercising free-market choice.
If consumers believe a financial institution may hold their values against them, they have the right to move their business to a bank that will not.
That is exactly how markets are supposed to work.
We are a law-and-order bank.
We comply with Bank Secrecy Act requirements, anti-money laundering (AML) regulations, sanctions screening, suspicious activity monitoring, customer identification requirements, and every other obligation necessary to protect the integrity of the financial system.
When we identify actual fraudsters, criminals, money launderers, or bad actors, we do not hesitate to close accounts and cooperate with law enforcement.
But we also understand the crucial difference between illegal financial activity and the vague, subjective smokescreen of "reputational risk."
A customer should never be treated as a financial threat simply because their political views, religious beliefs, advocacy work, or lawful business activities may be unpopular with executives, activists, or regulators.
Risk management is essential to banking. Ideological discrimination is not. Old Glory Bank believes Americans deserve a financial institution that knows the difference.
The OCC findings should serve as a wake-up call to every American, regardless of political affiliation.
Today's target may be conservatives. Tomorrow's target may be progressives, religious organizations, advocacy groups, energy producers, digital asset businesses, or anyone whose activities become politically unpopular.
The principle remains the same.
Americans deserve equal access to banking services based on objective risk, legal compliance, and sound financial practices, not ideology.
The best protection against debanking is not trusting that future governments will make the right decision.
It is ensuring that Americans have alternatives.
And when it comes to alternatives, Old Glory Bank offers something increasingly valuable in modern finance:
A commitment to serving customers based on who they are as account holders, not how they vote, worship, or think.
Old Glory Bank isn't one of the trillion-dollar financial giants with armies of lobbyists, multinational operations, and decades of market dominance.
We're the challenger.
We’re David against Goliath.
We're the bank that looked at an industry increasingly controlled by a handful of powerful institutions and said Americans deserve another choice.
Throughout our nation's history, progress has often come from smaller innovators willing to stand up to entrenched interests. That's exactly what Old Glory Bank is doing today. While the biggest banks have the scale, we have the conviction. While they have the market share, we have the mission.
Every customer who chooses Old Glory Bank is sending a message that financial freedom matters, that Americans should not be forced to conform to the values of corporate power-mongering, and that competition is the ultimate check on concentrated power.
References
CBS News: Top U.S. banks dropped customers over political and religious views, regulator says
Newsmax: Federal Report: Major Banks Discriminated Against Conservatives
https://www.occ.treas.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2026/nr-occ-2026-91.html The OCC report referenced in this article.
https://www.occ.treas.gov/ (for additional official statements and reports)
