Today President Trump issued an Executive Order intended to end the practice of politically-motivated debanking–a practice of which he himself was a victim. As always with Executive Orders, you have to read it to see exactly what it says, not just what its laudable objective might be.
In this case, I think the order will have real consequences. It says in part:
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.
That is all well-known. What to do about it?
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.
Specifically:
(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 that could result in politicized or unlawful debanking and to ensure that any regulated firm’s or individual’s reputation is considered for regulatory, supervisory, banking, or enforcement purposes solely to the extent necessary to reach a reasonable and apolitical risk-based assessment.
There is more, but this is key: “reputation risk” has been the rubric under which debanking has been justified. You wouldn’t want to do business with a firearms manufacturer, would you? It could hurt your reputation! With leftists. You wouldn’t want to do business with Donald Trump, would you? It could hurt your reputation! With Democrats.
There is more to the order, but the banking industry is so heavily regulated, and political discrimination by banks is so irrational, that it is not unreasonable to think that these actions may stamp out the practice of politically-motivated debanking. At least for now.
Via InstaPundit.
