Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Banks

New executive order takes aim at debanking

Published

3 minute read

From The Center Square

By 

Among the executive orders President Donald Trump signed Thursday was one instructing federal banking regulators to shed language from their guidance documents that the administration believes can lead to the debanking of people or institutions for political reasons.

“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 politicised or unlawful debanking is not used as a tool to inhibit such beliefs, affiliations, or political views,” the order reads.

Debanking individuals or institutions on the basis of political and personal views has become more visible in the U.S. since 2020, following similar reported trends in the U.K. and Europe where organizations like BankTrack and Bankwatch have monitored and reported on banks’ clients’ compliance with certain climate and human rights initiatives for decades.

Debanking occurs when a financial institution either closes or restricts an account or refuses to provide services to a potential client. Perhaps the most well-known, large-scale example occurred in 2022, when the Canadian government seized and froze the bank accounts of some participating in the Freedom Convoy, a convoy of thousands of truckers across Canada protesting the country’s vaccine mandates.

Financial institutions can and have also debanked clients independently of government involvement or direction. The order, however, focuses on federal reforms to prevent the government from encouraging or inciting debanking, as it claims it did in Operation Choke Point. The operation, which took place under the Obama administration, designated certain industries as high-risk for fraud and money laundering.

Republicans say the administration used it to target individuals, businesses and industries it opposed politically – like the gun industry – while Democrats say it was simply aimed at protecting consumers.

The Small Business Administration and other federal banking regulators are to “remove the use of reputation risk or equivalent concepts” from documents they use to “regulate or examine” financial institutions to avoid encouraging the debanking of clients for political or “unlawful” reasons.

The order also directs the SBA to ensure the reinstatement of clients’ accounts at financial institutions that debanked them for such reasons.

Thirty-two members of the State Financial Officers Foundation from 24 states signed onto a joint statement commending the executive order.

“President Trump’s executive action directly confronts this abuse of regulatory authority,” they said. “By reaffirming that banks must evaluate customers based on objective financial criteria, not political or religious views, his leadership marks a crucial step toward restoring viewpoint neutrality and putting an end to unlawful discrimination in our financial sector.”

Financial institutions can debank clients if those clients are found to be engaged in illegal activity.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Banks

Debanking Is Real, And It’s Coming For You

Published on

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Marco Navarro-Genie

Marco Navarro-Genie warns that debanking is turning into Ottawa’s weapon of choice to silence dissent, and only the provinces can step in to protect Canadians.

Disagree with the establishment and you risk losing your bank account

What looked like a narrow, post-convoy overreach has morphed into something much broader—and far more disturbing. Debanking isn’t a policy misfire. It’s turning into a systemic method of silencing dissent—not just in Canada, but across the Western world.

Across Canada, the U.S. and the U.K., people are being cut off from basic financial services not because they’ve broken any laws, but because they hold views or support causes the establishment disfavors. When I contacted Eva Chipiuk after RBC quietly shut down her account, she confirmed what others had only whispered: this is happening to a lot of people.

This abusive form of financial blacklisting is deep, deliberate and dangerous. In the U.K., Nigel Farage, leader of Reform UK and no stranger to controversy, was debanked under the fig leaf of financial justification. Internal memos later revealed the real reason: he was deemed a reputational risk. Cue the backlash, and by 2025, the bank was forced into a settlement complete with an apology and compensation. But the message had already been sent.

That message didn’t stay confined to Britain. And let’s not pretend it’s just private institutions playing favourites. Even in Alberta—where one might hope for a little more institutional backbone—Tamara Lich was denied an appointment to open an account at ATB Financial. That’s Alberta’s own Crown bank. If you think provincial ownership protects citizens from political interference, think again.

Fortunately, not every institution has lost its nerve. Bow Valley Credit Union, a smaller but principled operation, has taken a clear stance: it won’t debank Albertans over their political views or affiliations. In an era of bureaucratic cowardice, Bow Valley is acting like a credit union should: protective of its members and refreshingly unapologetic about it.

South of the border, things are shifting. On Aug. 7, 2025, U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order titled “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans.” The order prohibits financial institutions from denying service based on political affiliation, religion or other lawful activity. It also instructs U.S. regulators to scrap the squishy concept of “reputational risk”—the bureaucratic smoke screen used to justify debanking—and mandates a review of past decisions. Cases involving ideological bias must now be referred to the Department of Justice.

This isn’t just paperwork. It’s a blunt declaration: access to banking is a civil right. From now on, in the U.S., politically motivated debanking comes with consequences.

Of course, it’s not perfect. Critics were quick to notice that the order conveniently omits platforms like PayPal and other payment processors—companies that have been quietly normalizing debanking for over a decade. These are the folks who love vague “acceptable use” policies and ideological red lines that shift with the political winds. Their absence from the order raises more than a few eyebrows.

And the same goes for another set of financial gatekeepers hiding in plain sight. Credit card networks like Visa, American Express and Mastercard have become powerful, unaccountable referees, denying service to individuals and organizations labelled “controversial” for reasons that often boil down to politics.

If these players aren’t explicitly reined in, banks might play by the new rules while the rest of the financial ecosystem keeps enforcing ideological conformity by other means.

If access to money is a civil right, then that right must be protected across the entire payments system—not just at your local branch.

While the U.S. is attempting to shield its citizens from ideological discrimination, there is a noticeable silence in Canada. Not a word of concern from the government benches—or the opposition. The political class is united, apparently, in its indifference.

If Ottawa won’t act, provinces must. That makes things especially urgent for Alberta and Saskatchewan. These are the provinces where dissent from Ottawa’s policies is most common—and where citizens are most likely to face politically motivated financial retaliation.

But they’re not powerless. Both provinces boast robust credit union systems. Alberta even owns ATB Financial, a Crown bank originally created to protect Albertans from central Canadian interference. But ownership without political will is just branding.

If Alberta and Saskatchewan are serious about defending civil liberties, they should act now. They can legislate protections that prohibit financial blacklisting based on political affiliation or lawful advocacy. They can require due process before any account is frozen. They can strip “reputational risk” from the rulebooks and make it clear to Ottawa: using banks to punish dissenters won’t fly here.

Because once governments—or corporations doing their bidding—can cut off your access to money for holding the wrong opinion, democracy isn’t just threatened.

It’s already broken.

Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

Continue Reading

Alberta

Your money isn’t as safe as you think

Published on

This article supplied by Troy Media.

Troy Media By Marco Navarro-Genie 

The Emergencies Act proved how quickly bank accounts can be weaponized. Alberta must act now to protect its citizens.

When Eva Chipiuk (the Alberta lawyer who famously confronted former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s assertions at the Emergencies Act inquiry) found out her Royal Bank account was being shut down, it confirmed a chilling truth: those who challenge Ottawa are not safe from retribution.

Chipiuk committed no crime and was not charged with any offence. However, the Montreal-based Royal Bank refused to provide her services, citing an unspecified risk. The message is clear: if you challenge Ottawa, you may risk being treated as an economic non-person. This comes just months before Tamara Lich, an Alberta resident, is expected to be sentenced for standing up against COVID overreach.

The Alberta government cannot ignore these threats against its citizens. There is plenty Ottawa doesn’t like about Alberta and Albertans today. Given that, in a February 2022 Globe and Mail oped—written before he became prime minister—Mark Carney described civil protesters as “seditionists,” one doesn’t need much imagination to see how his government could treat Albertans who push for greater control over their future. The province must prepare now to shield its citizens from financial retaliation.

Albertans who think their money is safe if it’s parked at a credit union or ATB, instead of a chartered bank, are mistaken. It isn’t. Under the Criminal Code, the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, and the Emergencies Act, Ottawa can force any “financial service provider”—including provincially regulated credit unions—to freeze accounts. For example, when Tamara Lich tried to open an account with ATB—Alberta’s Crown-owned financial institution—she was denied even an appointment.

Events such as these show that it doesn’t take a judge to determine you have run afoul of those laws—only a government that disagrees with you.

Alberta has the tools to defend its citizens, and it should use them. It should start by making ATB and its provincially regulated credit unions fortresses against politically motivated financial punishment. ATB, created in 1938 to shield farmers from the aggressive lending practices of Laurentian bankers, has a distinct status as an arm of the Alberta government.

That status can be leveraged today to keep Ottawa at bay by:

  • Refocusing ATB on serving Albertans, not advancing trendy corporate agendas.
  • Amending the ATB Financial Act to require judicial orders for any account freezes or closures, mandate public reporting of such actions, and enshrine political neutrality to ensure no Albertan is denied service for lawful political activity.
  • Preparing to invoke the Sovereignty Act if Ottawa attempts another Emergencies Act-style move, instructing ATB and its credit unions to disregard unconstitutional federal orders unless validated by Alberta courts.
  • Creating a Québec-style integrated financial regulator to oversee ATB and Alberta’s provincially regulated credit unions, insulating them from Ottawa’s reach.
  • Exploring alternative payment systems to reduce reliance on Ottawa-controlled clearing mechanisms. Payments Canada—which Ottawa controls—could be used as a choke point against Alberta institutions. A provincial or private settlement system would blunt that weapon before it can be deployed.

Finally, Alberta should enact an Alberta Financial Rights Act guaranteeing that no one will be denied financial services and that no account can be frozen or closed without due process in open court.

Ottawa will not take this lying down. It can seek court injunctions, threaten ATB’s and our credit unions’ access to national payment systems, or pass legislation directly targeting provincial Crown corporations. Alberta must anticipate these moves now by drafting constitutional challenges, forging alliances with like-minded provinces, and building backup clearing systems.

When the federal government can freeze your account for giving $50 to the “wrong” cause, you are not a free citizen. You are a subject. The treatment of Tamara Lich and Eva Chipiuk’s debanking is a warning.

Alberta can either wait for the next wave of financial punishments to hit its citizens, or it can act decisively to make ATB and its provincially regulated credit unions fortresses that protect them. Premier Danielle Smith has a unique opportunity to put Alberta first again—and she should take it.

Marco Navarro-Genie is vice-president of research at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy and co-author, with Barry Cooper, of Canada’s COVID: The Story of a Pandemic Moral Panic (2023).

Troy Media empowers Canadian community news outlets by providing independent, insightful analysis and commentary. Our mission is to support local media in helping Canadians stay informed and engaged by delivering reliable content that strengthens community connections and deepens understanding across the country.

Continue Reading

Trending

X