Biden Admin Fascism at Work: Big Banks Debanked Politically Sensitive Industries
A major investigation by federal banking regulators has uncovered early evidence that nine of America’s largest banks cut off services to politically sensitive industries. These decisions affected companies involved in oil and gas, firearms, coal, tobacco, private prisons, and even cryptocurrency. The findings support long standing claims by President Trump that some banks engaged in what he has called politicized or unlawful debanking. For many, the report confirms that financial power was used as a political weapon, shaping entire sectors of the economy through selective denial of basic banking services.
Who Conducted the Investigation
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, led by Comptroller Jonathan Gould, carried out the investigation. Gould ordered the nine largest banks under his authority to produce detailed accounts of their client restrictions and account closures. His office is responsible for ensuring that banks uphold their government granted charters and serve the public fairly.
Gould did not hide his frustration with what the OCC found so far. He said, “It is unfortunate that the nation’s largest banks thought these harmful debanking policies were an appropriate use of their government granted charter and market power.” He emphasized that the investigation is ongoing and added that the OCC “could ultimately refer its findings to the Attorney General.”
The report noted that while many of these policies were implemented openly, banks have continued to deny that they engaged in debanking. Gould countered those claims, stating, “While many of these policies were undertaken in plain sight and even announced publicly, certain banks have continued to insist that they did not engage in debanking.”
Which Banks Were Involved
The banks named in the report include JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, US Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank and BMO Bank. These institutions dominate the financial landscape and hold tremendous influence over which industries can access capital.
All of the banks have denied that they debank customers for political reasons. They claim that any restrictions were tied to legal requirements to monitor criminal activity or to manage financial risk. They also argue that environmental and social goals encouraged by investors led them to reduce ties with certain industries.
However, these explanations did not fully satisfy federal investigators, because many of the affected industries were lawful and financially stable. What they had in common was that they became politically unpopular under the Biden administration.
Which Industries Were Targeted
Companies in oil and gas extraction reported difficulties maintaining accounts. Firearms manufacturers faced similar problems, as did coal producers and tobacco companies. Private prisons and cryptocurrency firms were also affected. These are industries that became targets during the Biden years for environmental, social or ideological reasons.
The OCC report highlighted that many of the banks had adopted sustainability and climate based policies pushed by investors and activist groups. These commitments often required banks to distance themselves from fossil fuels or firearms. Gould noted that these decisions may not have been unlawful on their face but said they had the effect of denying services to entire categories of Americans based on political goals.
Banks claimed these moves were part of their risk management strategies. Yet these strategies aligned closely with the political priorities of the Biden administration, which supported heavy pressure on fossil fuels and other controversial sectors.
How the Biden Administration Encouraged Debanking
While banks publicly denied political motivations, the wider regulatory environment told another story. The Biden administration encouraged banks to take stronger positions on climate change, racial equity and other ideological goals. Investors also demanded aggressive sustainability policies, which in practice pushed banks to financially isolate disfavored industries.
President Trump has repeatedly argued that this environment encouraged banks to discriminate. He has said that he and his businesses were debanked after leaving office in 2021. He described the experience as punishment for political views, linking his treatment to what many conservatives experienced in recent years.
The White House, after Trump returned to office, issued an executive order accusing banks of discriminating against conservatives and cryptocurrency companies. It threatened fines against institutions that close accounts for political reasons.
Trump’s Plan to Punish Debanking
President Trump has now taken direct action. He signed an executive order establishing penalties for financial institutions that shut down accounts based on political beliefs. The order demands that regulators investigate whether banks ever used reputational or ideological reasons to deny service. It also seeks to limit the ability of banks to rely on vague claims of reputational risk to justify dropping lawful businesses.
Trump warned bank leaders publicly earlier this year during a speech at the World Economic Forum in Davos. He told them, “I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank.” He then directly addressed JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon, saying, “You and Jamie and everybody, I hope you are going to open your bank to conservatives.”
These remarks reflected growing frustration among conservatives who believed the financial system had been weaponized against them. Trump’s order aims to ensure that banks cannot quietly blacklist industries simply because they are politically unfashionable.
To critics of the Biden era, the debanking scandal represents something far more serious than a political dispute. Fascism is simply government influence over private industries used to control the population, a tool of oppression, anti-democratic in every respect. In this case, regulators, activist investors and powerful banks converged on the same political targets, creating a system where certain lawful industries could be financially choked without any democratic debate.
Instead of passing laws to shut down firearms companies or fossil fuel producers, political forces pressured banks to do it quietly. That is why many believe this is the definition of government backed control of industry. Banking is not the only area where this happened. Similar pressures affected technology companies, energy producers and even online platforms.
The OCC investigation has exposed how widespread and coordinated these actions may have been. It also raises concerns that other regulators encouraged similar behavior behind closed doors.
Access to banking is central to almost every part of modern life. When banks adopt political filters for who can hold an account, they effectively decide which industries are allowed to survive. The OCC report shows that some of the most powerful banks in America used that influence in ways that aligned with political goals rather than financial fairness.
The Bank Policy Institute, a group representing major banks, said the industry supports new rules to ensure fair access. The group stated, “It is in banks’ best interest to take deposits, lend to and support as many consumers and businesses as possible to drive economic growth.”
Gould says the OCC will now hold banks accountable and prevent unlawful debanking from continuing. The investigation is far from over, and the next steps could shape financial policy for years. For many Americans, the findings are a reminder of how easily powerful institutions can silence whole parts of the economy without public debate and how essential it is to prevent political agendas from controlling access to basic financial services.
PBP Editor: In case you haven’t noticed, this really pisses me off. We have been the victim of this, not in banking but in other ways.
And the demoncrats call us facists and Nazis. They are the worst of the worst. Even Dunger can’t explain how America would be better off without republicans government
EXACTLY!!!!!!!!
Sure, our deficit would be lower, employment and wages higher, taxation with representation, no felons in the oval, no drunk rapists as god of war, no nasal weirdo’s as fbi top flop, no sex abusers in the oval, no defamers of women in the oval, no bondi bimbos, competent federal prosecutors who can make charges stick. no cash bribes in bags, yada yada yada to a stupid question from Suckethdung.
Remember, opinions cannot be wrong and you begged for it.
Hey DUNGER. Trump is a felon who still kicked the token’s stinking ass. He’s judged a sex offender by fools like you who don’t believe in guilt being proven beyond a reasonable doubt. I hope you find yourself in the same situation someday. I really mean that. You cocksuckers use the law to destroy your opponents. Why don’t you bitch about your bald monkey piece of shit who knows all about the samolian scandal? You spout stupidity and misinformation. But know this. Your commie shit party will never govern us. So merry Christmas Dunger 💩. You stink.
Oh no, Mr. Oliver notes: “Biden Admin Fascism at Work.” I am not sure Daniel knows what fascism is, much less lived it, but he sure did not find a case here. I think Oliver is saying: “please Trump, can I have some less?” Probably already trashed 35 dolls and 35 pencils.
He says: “Fascism is simply government influence over private industries used to control the population, a tool of oppression, anti-democratic in every respect.” Bwhaaaat? Try AI: “Fascism is a far-right, authoritarian political ideology and movement characterized by dictatorial power, extreme nationalism (often tied to race), forcible suppression of opposition, centralized control of the economy and society, and militarism, prioritizing the nation above the individual and rejecting democracy and liberalism. Rooted in Mussolini’s Italy, it involves a strong leader, cult of personality, aggressive expansionism, and often scapegoating minorities, promising national restoration through unity and strength, symbolized by the Latin fascio (bundle).” Hmmm, didn’t see much of that here. Funny how Republicans toss the word about while blaming Democrats for doing it.
He hears about a Preliminary report, and publishes results as if it’s not only final, but adjudicated in a court of law for some unknown, undefined, infraction.
“Massive Fraud and Waste Confirmed in Obamacare Subsidies” claims the shame-game afficionado Oliver. This time CONFIRMED means a preliminary report, not court, tried in the press before fact-checking or criticism is broached. Of course, he has not seen any data. Did Oliver ask anyone, especially liberals, for response, comments, of course not, that would be professional. Did he second source the conclusions or data. Of course not. He plays the blame-game on preliminary results of things that will NEVER get to COURT. He probably did the same for the Biden impeachment investigation, the Biden crime family investigation, the Hunter hunt, Biden auto pen debacle, Biden classified document reading, weaponization of everything, and more. Those were multiple investigations, some yielding three-hundred-page reports, three or more committees working tirelessly, hearings, all BUSTED and we paid over $40M of YOUR MONEY for their time and effort. Remember the “hundreds of whistleblowers in my office giving depositions?” Turned out to be two or three that crashed n burned during their hearings based on the truth. The “hundreds” disappeared into the woodwork.
Ten’s of millions wasted on their witch hunts with trials held, guilty determined, at FOX NEWS with appeals won on all by fact-checkers. And now we waste even more of our hard earned tax dollars on Trump’s retribution tour. How much did the nothing-burger Comey investigation and indictment cost? James? Dropped charges on Ras Baraka? Detainment of Senator Padilla by force? And now, the civil suits from these witch-hunts underway that we must pay for to defend Trump and company. Sigh.
So here we go again. Big report. Preliminary. Why? So they can change it when the truth comes out, or just not produce the final. “Hey, who lost the Biden impeachment report?” A major supporter of this nonpartisan not objective never report: the guy Trump hired to do exactly this. And this is not even his top priority. Fact is his real charter here is to undermine banking safety controls put in post the last financial meltdown on Republican’s watch that almost sunk the nation. Or at least that’s what they promised. But his real top priority is to weaken banking safeties and controls to sneak AI and Crypto in as low risk investments for our financial systems. And before you get your panties in a wad: yes, G. Bush was not solely at fault for The Great Recession, and yes, G. Bush made the right moves, right away, and even consulting with Obama during the transition. Now there’s a concept Trump can’t fathom —– a peaceful transfer of power. What a concept.
Final report is Spring or Summer of 2026: if it’s summer, you know it’s being corrected. Wanna bet more trials in the court of FOX before then as the leaks come out?
Here’s what I see here and while sounds conspiratorial, it’s all in the Project 2025 handbook. This is a feint to get to their goal of destroying our banking security allowing AI and Crypto to be intertwined with our banking awaiting the next bigger, better, crash, they first are destroying the very foundations of the institution of US banking to pave their way for their real end game: less banking controls allowing riskier transactions, especially AI and Crypto. Their goal is to increase banking competition by decreasing oversight and regulation, a dangerous path that has never ended well in the past. I don’t follow her on much, but trust Elizabeth Warren as the expert on this one, and Katie Porter as a banking whiz in Congress.
That’s what this is really about: this report is just the first step in that game, discredit the institution of banking with the fix including loosing of AI and Crypto restrictions. Can the next Great Recession be in the making?
But if you listen to Mr. Oliver, nine banks cut services to politically sensitive businesses. There are over 4,000 banking businesses operating in the USA that did not. Dunning banks because you don’t like their politics as forced on banks by their investors is like Trump and DeSantis telling customers to dump on Disney. Disney, like these banks, reacting to customers is just good business, like Trump catering to Russian oligarchs at his resorts.
The banks noted “they also argue that environmental and social goals encouraged by investors led them to reduce ties with certain industries.” Again, good business and good luck proving a law broken, but you gave up the rule of law long ago. Trump and company said but it happened during Biden so it must be bad. Guess we can prosecute anything that happens during Trump based on that logic.
Another Oliver silly: “The Biden administration encouraged banks to take stronger positions on climate change, racial equity and other ideological goals. Investors also demanded aggressive sustainability policies, which in practice pushed banks to financially isolate disfavored industries.” Oh no, the horror of it all. Now, under Trump, we advocate aggressive positions favoring climate change, inequalities, and pollution. Ah, ain’t the future gonna be grand in Trumpistan.
11 months to put the brakes on this shit.
Investors will always have opinions and will advocate said opinions with their wallets. It’s called capitalism; not fascism, get over it Oliver.
“PBP Editor: In case you haven’t noticed, this really pisses me off. We have been the victim of this, not in banking but in other ways.” This is laughable. Story about debanking did not affect you, but you were affected in other ways. And they are the same? Another bwhaaaaaat? WTF are you even talking about? Got proof?
Critical thinking folks, how often have these “experts” launched investigations, written reports, indicted people, charged people, and more only to go bust? Track record for the past five years has not been good. James undone, Comey reversed, no Biden impeachment, and so on, and so on. Probably best to judge after final report, if it even ever comes out.