President Donald Trump signed an executive order this week banning federally regulated banks from blocking client accounts due to political or religious beliefs or lawful business practices. The directive targets “unlawful debanking,” which the White House calls a tool of ideological oppression. But a glaring omission in the policy—Visa and Mastercard—has sparked debate over its efficacy. These two companies, which dominate global card processing, were left untouched despite their history of privately policing transactions.
“The order takes swings at the branches while the trunk… stands untouched,” said Christina Maas of Reclaim The Net, noting banks can still switch financial lifelines. While the EO mandates banks abandon “reputational risk” as grounds for cutting clients, payment processors retain unchecked authority to freeze accounts or block sales of legal yet “controversial” goods.
Trump’s personal experience with banking discrimination fueled the order: his wife Melania described banks abruptly closing her accounts with no justification, while his campaign claimed two banks denied his business services.
Operation Chokepoint 2.0: A history of regulatory overreach
The EO nods to the Obama-era Operation Chokepoint, which pressured banks to shun industries like firearms and adult services. However, critics argue similar patterns persist, citing regulators basing decisions on vague “moral hazard” concepts.
