Trump signs executive order cracking down on ‘debanking': ‘Incompatible with a free society'
'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,' Trump wrote in his order.
'Banking decisions must instead be made on the basis of individualized, objective, and risk-based analyses,' he added.
3 Banks that engaged in unlawful debanking may face fines and penalties under Trump's order.
AP
Earlier this week, Trump accused JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America of rejecting more than $1 billion of his deposits for political reasons.
'The banks discriminated against me very badly,' he told CNBC on Tuesday.
Former Republican Kansas Gov. Sam Brownback recently alleged he was 'debanked' by JPMorgan over his conservative religious views – a claim the bank denied.
Banks have also been accused of canceling accounts of customers engaged in cryptocurrency ventures and supporting conservative causes, such as Second Amendment activities.
Trump noted that victims of debanking 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,' the president continued, describing discriminatory debanking as 'unlawful.'
3 Major banking groups have endorsed Trump's order.
Christopher Sadowski
Trump's order directs banking regulators to remove reputational risk and other equivalent concepts from federal guidelines and instructs the Small Business Administration to require all financial institutions to make reasonable efforts to reinstate anyone who was unlawfully debanked.
The president further ordered Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to develop a comprehensive strategy to combat debanking, through legislation or new regulations.
Banks found to have engaged in discriminatory debanking may be subject to fines or other penalties from regulators, the order stated.
3 Trump accused Bank of America earlier this week of previously refusing his deposits.
Getty Images
Trump also directed banking regulators to review complaints and data related to debanking and refer potentially unlawful cases to the Justice Department.
Major banking groups applauded Trump's executive action.
'Today's Executive Order helps ensure all consumers and businesses are treated fairly, a goal the nation's banks share with the Administration,' the Bank Policy Institute, American Bankers Association, Consumer Bankers Association and Financial Services Forum said in a joint statement.
'It's in banks' best interest to take deposits, lend to and support as many customers as possible,' the groups said. 'Unfortunately, regulatory overreach, supervisory discretion and a maze of obscure rules have stood in the way as the E.O. makes clear.'
'We thank the Administration for its efforts to protect access to banking and rein in runaway regulations and look forward to working with the White House, Congress and the agencies to create a national standard that advances these goals.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
a minute ago
- Boston Globe
Jorge Elorza's big bet on school vouchers
Now Elorza is embracing a long-standing third rail in Democratic politics: Elorza is encouraging Democratic governors The rules of Trump's new program haven't yet been published and it won't take effect until 2027, but families would be eligible for up to $1,700 in federal tax credits for reimbursement for private school tuition, or as Elorza likes to point out, for hiring tutors or buying laptops for students. Get Rhode Map A weekday briefing from veteran Rhode Island reporters, focused on the things that matter most in the Ocean State. Enter Email Sign Up As he sees it, the new program presents an opportunity for Democrats to embrace innovation in education – an issue the party has largely abandoned over the last decade. Advertisement 'Republicans are creating a new federal program that is giving lower income families money to do whatever they wish with, and it is Democrats who are against this,' Elorza told me this week. 'What world are we living in where that is the case?' Elorza is not a political novice, so he knows the answer to his own question. Advertisement Teachers' unions hate the idea of school vouchers for the same reasons they often oppose public charter schools: they believe those programs take money away from traditional public schools, which eventually leads to job losses. Indeed, Randi Weingarten, the president of the American Federation of Teachers, told The New York Times, that ' Elorza offered a familiar retort: 'I believe that money following the child should be the default operating system that we use for schooling in the United States.' He said Democrats should be alarmed that polling suggests 'I understand the logic behind political alliances if they're paying political dividends,' Elorza said. 'But we are now under water.' His own experience underscores his point. Elorza was largely an unapologetic progressive during his eight years in City Hall between 2015 and 2023, establishing a pilot program on universal basic income, and becoming one of the first mayors in the country to push for Still, he never quite earned the adulation of progressive advocates because of his tense relationship with the Elorza's frustrations with the union boiled over to the point that he Advertisement But as Elorza grew disillusioned with the lack of progress in Providence schools, he found himself alone on an island because most allies didn't want to cross the state's teachers' unions. Nationally, school reform efforts also fell on the backburner. He said that Democrats largely rallied to oppose anything Trump put forward in his first term, but President Joe Biden rarely made K-12 education a top priority during his four years in office. He said he's hopeful that a new crop of Democratic governors might be more willing to focus on education, and make it a winning issue for the party again. Elorza pointed out that President Bill Clinton was an early supporter of charter schools, and President Barack Obama was a staunch school advocate who created the Race to the Top program that funneled billions of dollars to states that were willing to overhaul low-performing schools. 'The unions weren't happy with that and [Clinton and Obama] became the leaders of the free world,' he said. 'What we haven't had is the guidance right from the very top.' The question now is whether Elorza can convince other Democrats to concede the school voucher battle to Trump in order to win the broader war on education in the long run. Dan McGowan can be reached at
Newsweek
a minute ago
- Newsweek
Gerrymandering Is America's Dumbest Political Tradition
Americans live with many oddities in our political system. We hand the White House to candidates who lost the election by popular vote count. We elect sheriffs and judges like it's still the Wild West. We tolerate Senate rules that allow 41 members to block the will of 59. But of the various artifacts of American political exceptionalism, none so reliably damages democracy as gerrymandering. This weekend brought yet another illustration: Democratic lawmakers in Texas fled the state to prevent a vote on a Republican redistricting plan that would carve five new districts in ways that dilute minority and urban representation, effectively guaranteeing GOP congressional gains in 2026. Governor Greg Abbott responded with threats of arrest. Attorney General Ken Paxton floated declaring the seats vacant. And most of the country barely reacted—because what should be an institutional crisis has become routine. Like frogs who grow accustomed to ever-more scalding water, Americans have come to accept that these are reasonable ways to behave. But viewed from abroad—where I have spent most of my career as a foreign correspondent—it looks like a mutation of politics. Gerrymandering has existed in the United States since the early 19th century, when Massachusetts Governor Elbridge Gerry approved a contorted district map, one segment of which resembled a salamander. The idea is to use district boundaries to minimize the other side's representation. In today's data-driven age, what began as crude, localized manipulation has become a mathematically precise tool for systematically distorting election results, sometimes cementing minority rule. Both parties have used it, but Republicans in recent decades have elevated gerrymandering to an art form. After the 2010 census, the GOP launched Project REDMAP to target swing-state legislatures and redraw maps for maximum partisan advantage. In Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, the results were astonishing: in 2018, Democrats in Wisconsin won 53 percent of the vote but received only 36 of Wisconsin's 99 State Assembly seats. In state after state—Texas, Ohio, North Carolina, Alabama, Florida—legislatures have engineered maps that ensure one-party dominance, often through racial gerrymandering techniques like "cracking" minority populations to dilute their votes across districts or "packing" them into as few as possible. After the 2020 census, Texas gained two new congressional seats thanks to population growth among Latino and Black residents. But rather than enhance those communities' representation, lawmakers redrew boundaries to minimize their political impact. Even when courts intervene, legislatures delay action, ignore rulings, or revise maps just enough to skirt the edges of compliance. The consequences are profound. Competitive elections become rarer. Incumbents grow unassailable, accountable only to low-turnout partisan primaries, which reward extremism and penalize compromise. Minority voices are marginalized. In this disgraceful landscape, public cynicism becomes rational. AUSTIN, TEXAS - AUGUST 07: Attendees view a map during a Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting public testimony hearing on August 07, 2025 in Austin, Texas. AUSTIN, TEXAS - AUGUST 07: Attendees view a map during a Senate Special Committee on Congressional Redistricting public testimony hearing on August 07, 2025 in Austin, see the results: basic gun reforms stall in Congress despite widespread public support. State legislatures pass book bans and restrict abortion access in defiance of majority sentiment. Fringe candidates win office on the backs of ideological activists, then shape national policy. And many Americans, correctly sensing the game is deeply flawed, give up on voting altogether. America's voter participation levels are rather low. The U.S. is nearly alone in tolerating gerrymandering. The U.K. also uses district-based elections, but it relies on independent commissions—devoid of political input—to draw its maps based on geography and population. Canada and Australia follow similar models. Most European democracies use proportional representation, where seats are allocated according to vote share. That can come with other problems, like unstable government and unwieldy coalitions, but it does make the very idea of gerrymandering structurally impossible. American politicians, by contrast, not only draw their own maps but do so under few constraints. Judicial oversight is minimal. Federal standards are nearly nonexistent. That we have normalized this madness is a measure of our democratic decline. Gerrymandering is part of a broader pattern: a constellation of structurally anti-democratic mechanisms that Americans have come to accept. The Electoral College has routinely awarded the presidency to the loser of the popular vote. In this system—consider this absurdity—presidential candidates have no reason to visit the nation's three most populous cities or its capital. New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, and Washington are not in swing states, so the results there are pre-ordained. Indeed, until the 1964 election the residents of the capital could not even vote for president—the District of Columbia is not a state; it took a constitutional amendment to fix that nonsense. The Senate filibuster blocks legislation backed by broad majorities. The election of law enforcement officials politicizes justice. Even the United States' measurement system—miles, pounds, gallons, with hardly anyone knowing how many inches there are in a mile—sets us at odds with scientific and global norms. To me, this looks like dysfunction masquerading as heritage, and ossification passing itself off as tradition. It has real consequences for trust, governance, and national cohesion. There is nothing in the Constitution requiring states to draw districts this way. Several—Arizona, California, Michigan, Colorado—already use independent commissions with obviously better outcomes (meaning: not partisan cheating). Congress could impose basic national standards for fairness, transparency, and timing. But that remedy, too, is blocked by the Senate's procedural choke points—and, essentially, by the Republicans, who at this point have no shame. Ultimately, it will take a cultural shift: a refusal to accept gerrymandering as just another partisan tactic. It is, at its core, election-rigging. Parties that engage in it should be punished at the polls. Instead, they're rewarded with power. A fix may require a breakup of the current political duopoly. What's needed is a grand centrist force—perhaps not a party but a movement—committed to democratic principles, to institutional reform, and to fair representation. Such a force must reject gerrymandering outright: not balance it between parties or trim around the edges, but end it completely. No democracy can endure if its structures suppress majority rule. Outrages that seem entrenched are eventually swept aside, sometimes politely and sometimes with force. I have seen this happen again and again, around the world. At some point, the public says: enough. Dan Perry is the former Cairo-based Middle East editor (also leading coverage from Iran) and London-based Europe/Africa editor of the Associated Press, the former chairman of the Foreign Press Association in Jerusalem, and the author of two books. Follow him at The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek
a minute ago
- Newsweek
America Must Never Apologize for Dropping the Bombs on Japan
This week marks the 80th anniversary of President Harry Truman's fateful decision to drop atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki (respectively, Aug. 6 and 9, 1945). To date, those two bombings represent the only instances in which nuclear weapons have been deployed in war. At least 150,000 Japanese perished—a majority of them civilians. But the bombings were successful in achieving their intended effect: Japan announced its formal surrender to the Allies six days after the second bombing, thus finally bringing the bloodiest conflict in human history to an end. For decades, ethical opposition to Truman's decision has mostly come from left-wing critics. That seems to be changing. Last year, Tucker Carlson claimed that nuclear weapons were created by "demonic" forces and asserted that the United States was "evil" for dropping the bomb on Japan. Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard also posted a highly peculiar video in June that, while falling short of apologizing for the bombs, did pointedly warn of "warmongers" who are bringing the world to the brink of "nuclear holocaust." This is misguided. Looking back eight decades later, Truman's decision deserves not condemnation but a tragic and grudging gratitude. It was the right decision, and America must never apologize for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Critics often portray Truman's decision as an act of monstrous brutality—a flex of raw military might by a sadistic and trigger-happy superpower. But such characterizations, drenched in presentist moral narcissism, do a grave disservice to the reality on the ground and the countless lives Truman undoubtedly saved. They are also a grave disservice to the memory of all those killed by the Japanese at Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. Carlson and his fellow ultra-pacifists should visit Pearl Harbor and stand over the sunken USS Arizona, the final resting place of more than 900 sailors and marines. One can still see and smell the oil leaking from the ships, all these decades later; it is an extraordinary experience. Shocking sensory intakes aside, the sober reality is that the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, no matter how morbid and macabre, were strategically and morally correct. When Truman authorized the use of the atomic bombs, he faced a truly appalling alternative: a full-scale land invasion of Japan. Operation Downfall, the planned invasion of the Japanese home islands, had projected American and Japanese casualties potentially reaching as high as a million lives each. The Imperial Japanese, steeped in a kamikaze warrior ethos, had proven time and again—at Iwo Jima, Okinawa, and elsewhere—that they would fight to the last man, woman, and child. Schoolchildren were being trained to attack American troops with sharpened bamboo sticks. Fighting to the death was not mere speculation; it was core Imperial Japanese doctrine. FILE - In this Aug. 6, 1945, file photo released by U.S. Air Force, a column of smoke rises 20,000 feet over Hiroshima, western Japan, after the first atomic 5-ton "Little Boy" bomb was released.... FILE - In this Aug. 6, 1945, file photo released by U.S. Air Force, a column of smoke rises 20,000 feet over Hiroshima, western Japan, after the first atomic 5-ton "Little Boy" bomb was released. The U.S. dropped a uranium bomb on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, killing 140,000 people in the world's first atomic attack. Three days later, it dropped a plutonium bomb on Nagasaki, killing another 74,000. (George R. Caron/US Air Force via AP, File) More George R. Caron/AP The under-discussed truth is that Imperial Japan was just as ruthless and barbaric as its Nazi German wartime ally. And the atomic bombs—absolutely horrific though they were—finally shocked Japan into surrender. They punctured Japan's carefully curated myth of divine invincibility and left Tokyo's bellicose leadership with no doubt that continued resistance could only mean utter annihilation. More than 100,000 Americans had already been killed in the Pacific theater, and those who had survived were overjoyed by Truman's decision: They knew they would live and return home to their wives and children. Truman's decision also affirmed a deeper American nationalistic sentiment: that from an American perspective, the safety and security of American lives must necessarily be prioritized over foreign lives. Truman did not see any moral virtue in sacrificing our soldiers on the altar of an abstract globalism or a relativistic humanitarianism. His first obligation as commander-in-chief was to protect American lives by securing a final, unconditional end to the war. In this, he succeeded—resoundingly. Critics often claim Japan was already on the brink of surrender. They point to back-channel diplomacy and note the Soviet declaration of war the day prior to the bombing of Nagasaki. But Truman didn't have the benefit of postwar memoirs or archival research. He had bloodied maps, hundreds of thousands of dead soldiers, grieving families, and military intelligence suggesting the Japanese military would never accept unconditional surrender without a shock so great it shattered their will to fight. This, too, reflects a clarity that modern Western leaders often lack: the resolve to act decisively, to bear the weight of terrible decisions in pursuit of peace and justice. Truman's choice was not only militarily sound but morally defensible. The bombings were not, as many armchair critics have argued over the decades, a cheap form of ethical utilitarianism; Truman's decision to bomb was simply reflective of how real war-and-peace decisions must be made in the heat of the moment, when the stakes are the highest. It is fashionable now to question the morality of Truman's decision from the safety of the present. But it is an act of historical myopia to pretend that the atomic bombings were gratuitous or overly callous. They were not. They were the tragic price of a brutal victory and the necessary cost of hard-fought peace. War, we know, is hell. Indeed, that is a very good reason to avoid starting wars in the first place. But once upon a time, Western societies understood that once a horrific war has been initiated, there can be no substitute for absolute victory. That lesson has long been forgotten. It is past time to learn it once again. Josh Hammer is Newsweek senior editor-at-large, host of "The Josh Hammer Show," senior counsel for the Article III Project, a research fellow with the Edmund Burke Foundation, and author of the new book, Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West (Radius Book Group). Subscribe to "The Josh Hammer Report," a Newsweek newsletter. X: @josh_hammer. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
