White House prepares order targeting banks for "unbanking" for political reasons(reuters.com)
reuters.com
White House prepares order targeting banks for "unbanking" for political reasons
https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/white-house-prepares-order-targeting-banks-trump-claims-discrimination-2025-08-06/
33 comments
This feels like another case where there should be legislation, but would never get done. It would also require admitting that auditing requirements are so burdensome that they are used to arbitrarily enforce policies, which no one wants to do.
Honestly, the root of most of our current problems can be traced to Congress not being able to effectively pass legislation and ceding ever more power to the Executive and Judiciary as workarounds.
Strongly agree. I also think this has been going on for the last 20 years.
The root issue has always been Congress.
The root issue has always been Congress.
[deleted]
Of everything he's done with EOs, this might actually be the most legal one.
the President has authority to allocate enforcement resources. "We are going to make sure the law was followed" is that authority. He can dress it up with all the flowery "no political debanking" rhetoric he wants, but if there's no actual law against refusing to hold accounts for the KKK, there's nothing for enforcement to do, and that's that.
(Apart from that, increased scrutiny could of course uncover other kinds of lawbreaking. When we're talking banks? Not against that.)
the President has authority to allocate enforcement resources. "We are going to make sure the law was followed" is that authority. He can dress it up with all the flowery "no political debanking" rhetoric he wants, but if there's no actual law against refusing to hold accounts for the KKK, there's nothing for enforcement to do, and that's that.
(Apart from that, increased scrutiny could of course uncover other kinds of lawbreaking. When we're talking banks? Not against that.)
except you feel for the misdirection.
unbanking is a very widespread issue that affect actual minorities all over the country. this text ignores that, then play the victim saying unbanking is affecting rich white people who want to obviously avoid taxes and launder money via illegal tokens, but are being denied because they are trump supporters. that's most definitely not unbanking, that's the system working as intended and the "because" part is obviously false. but now everything is upsidedown.
this is not about the kkk having bank accounts (they already do!). this will be another technicalities to be abused on the coming cryptocurrency fleece to end all cryptocurrency fleeces.
unbanking is a very widespread issue that affect actual minorities all over the country. this text ignores that, then play the victim saying unbanking is affecting rich white people who want to obviously avoid taxes and launder money via illegal tokens, but are being denied because they are trump supporters. that's most definitely not unbanking, that's the system working as intended and the "because" part is obviously false. but now everything is upsidedown.
this is not about the kkk having bank accounts (they already do!). this will be another technicalities to be abused on the coming cryptocurrency fleece to end all cryptocurrency fleeces.
Entirely possible, but since Chevron has been overturned, courts are no longer obligated to defer to Executive interpretation of the law, and as much as people think SCOTUS is in Trump's pocket... They're not particularly anti-bank and it's a bit of a toss-up whether they'd rule for or against a bank that dragged a case of "The Feds say we can't do this and we're pretty sure Congress didn't say that" all the way to them (and banks have a lot of money to do that dragging).
This was actually a significant problem during the Biden administration.
The rules were so vague that de-banking could be used in whatever context the administration found convenient. Apparently many companies were pushed offshore as a result.
Andreessen/Horowitz talk about it here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sNclEgQZQ
Andreessen/Horowitz talk about it here
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=n_sNclEgQZQ
> rules were so vague that de-banking could be used in whatever context the administration found convenient
But the courts were a check. The precedent the current administration has set is for summary debarking in the future in exchange for e.g. not being investigated for securities fraud.
But the courts were a check. The precedent the current administration has set is for summary debarking in the future in exchange for e.g. not being investigated for securities fraud.
If you watched the video you would know that the anecdotal evidence was precisely the opposite.
[deleted]
As usual this seems like it is "corruption! .... FOR me and my friends ..."
Both this and the other Trump EO that came out today (requiring colleges to report detailed race data to ensure they’re complying with SFFA) are good ideas and democrats should steal them. Don’t let Trump bait you into supporting Wall Street debanking people for their political views. That’s a total loser issue.
Why should banks be required to do business with you (for non-protected class reasons)? Why should Democrats want to make sure that colleges can ignore non-white and non-Asian applicants, regardless of potential ability?
Why would Dems support any of this clear and obvious bullshit, that is solely being pushed to distract from other… issues the administration is having?
> Why should banks be required to do business with you (for non-protected class reasons)?
Because most people aren’t libertarians and hate Wall Street. It’s a layup. And there’s nothing magic about “protected class reasons.” With respect to private entities, it’s just Congress’s Commerce Clause power. Congress can expand the categories to include whatever it wants.
> Why should Democrats want to make sure that colleges can ignore non-white and non-Asian applicants
Democrats should want to enforce SFFA, which bans racial preferences, whether those policies favor whites, asians, or anyone else. Not only because it’s the law of the land, and necessary to maintain a functioning multi-ethnic society, but because it’s popular: https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4411246-majority-supp...
Using racial preferences to create a unified “people of color” political identity loyal to Democrats has failed and it’s time to declare it dead: https://www.latimes.com/delos/story/2025-07-02/pew-research-...
Because most people aren’t libertarians and hate Wall Street. It’s a layup. And there’s nothing magic about “protected class reasons.” With respect to private entities, it’s just Congress’s Commerce Clause power. Congress can expand the categories to include whatever it wants.
> Why should Democrats want to make sure that colleges can ignore non-white and non-Asian applicants
Democrats should want to enforce SFFA, which bans racial preferences, whether those policies favor whites, asians, or anyone else. Not only because it’s the law of the land, and necessary to maintain a functioning multi-ethnic society, but because it’s popular: https://thehill.com/homenews/education/4411246-majority-supp...
Using racial preferences to create a unified “people of color” political identity loyal to Democrats has failed and it’s time to declare it dead: https://www.latimes.com/delos/story/2025-07-02/pew-research-...
On it goes…
> "They did discriminate," Trump said of actions taken by JPMorgan after his first term in office.
Well, don’t call Insurrection then!!
Well, don’t call Insurrection then!!
assword(1)
evilDagmar(1)
torium(1)
[dupe]
Earlier:
White House Preps Order to Punish Banks That Discriminate Against Conservatives
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44793168
Earlier:
White House Preps Order to Punish Banks That Discriminate Against Conservatives
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44793168
He is preparing the USA for a dictartorship.