America’s nine largest federally regulated banks maintained policies that restricted financial services based on customers’ political views, religious beliefs or involvement in lawful industries, according to a major federal investigation released Wednesday that uncovered widespread concerns about politically motivated discrimination in the banking system.

The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency found that all nine institutions had policies in place at various points between 2020 and September 2025 that could prevent individuals, organizations and businesses from obtaining banking services for reasons unrelated to their financial qualifications.

The findings, released as part of an investigation ordered by President Donald Trump, detail instances in which financial institutions closed accounts, rejected credit applications or restricted business relationships involving conservative organizations, religious nonprofits and companies operating in politically controversial industries.

The investigation examined the practices of JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC, TD Bank and BMO Bank.

Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould sharply criticized the findings, arguing that major financial institutions had improperly used their control over banking services to exclude customers whose beliefs or activities were considered objectionable.

“Today’s report provides irrefutable evidence that the nation’s largest banks have denied, debanked and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses,” Gould said in a statement accompanying the report.

The investigation was conducted under an executive order issued by Trump directing federal regulators to examine whether financial institutions had denied banking services to Americans because of their political affiliations, religious convictions or participation in lawful commercial activities.

Federal investigators reviewed nearly 100,000 complaints and approximately 420,000 pages of internal banking records, providing regulators with an extensive collection of information about how financial institutions evaluated customers and determined which businesses they would serve.

Among the most striking examples involved WePay, a payment-processing company previously owned by JPMorgan Chase, which terminated accounts belonging to merchants selling merchandise supporting Trump and the Make America Great Again movement.

According to the findings, WePay’s screening procedures identified politically associated terms, including “MAGA,” “Make America Great,” and “America First,” as potential grounds for additional scrutiny or account restrictions.

The processor also closed accounts connected to conservative religious organizations, including an organization that had been designated an extremist group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.

Another case involved PNC, where internal communications reportedly showed employees objecting to the political views of a media company’s owners while the bank was considering a request for credit.

The company was ultimately denied a line of credit after employees raised concerns about the owners’ publicly expressed conservative positions.

One PNC employee wrote that the business owners held views “very contrary to PNC’s beliefs/values.”

The report also described allegations involving Wells Fargo, which reportedly pressured a payment-processing company to discontinue its relationship with a religious nonprofit because of the organization’s position on same-sex marriage.

Wells Fargo additionally declined lending opportunities involving firearms-related businesses amid concerns about possible pressure from the Biden administration.

Other institutions imposed restrictions affecting entire categories of otherwise lawful businesses.

Bank of America limited relationships with companies involved in operating private prisons, while various banks maintained restrictions affecting the oil and gas industry, coal companies, firearms businesses and digital-asset firms.

The investigation indicated that political and ideological considerations sometimes became intertwined with financial institutions’ assessments of reputational and regulatory risk, raising questions about whether customers were being evaluated on legitimate banking criteria or on the acceptability of their views and activities.

Although conservative and religious organizations featured prominently in the report, investigators also identified examples involving organizations associated with liberal political causes.

Capital One, for example, declined to provide services to an abortion-rights organization as well as a gun-rights advocacy group, reportedly because of concerns that maintaining those relationships could be interpreted as endorsing the organizations’ positions.

The findings suggest that the issue extended beyond any single political movement, with banks at times avoiding customers whose activities or beliefs were considered controversial.

The OCC acknowledged that its investigation could not establish the complete number of customers affected by discriminatory banking practices or calculate the total financial losses suffered by individuals and businesses denied access to services.

The regulator also distinguished between legitimate financial risk assessments and decisions influenced by subjective judgments about a customer’s reputation, political associations or lawful activities.

JPMorgan Chase responded to the findings by acknowledging problems with WePay’s previous screening practices. The bank said those procedures did not meet its standards and had been corrected before the payment-processing operation was discontinued.

All nine banks informed regulators that they had modified their policies following increased scrutiny of their account restrictions and customer-screening procedures.

Nevertheless, Gould warned that voluntary changes might not be sufficient to prevent similar practices from recurring.

“Notwithstanding certain efforts by the largest banks to rein in these practices, I am not confident that they will be enough,” Gould said, indicating that the OCC would examine further changes to its regulatory and supervisory framework.

The agency has already taken steps to remove broad reputational-risk considerations from certain bank examinations, revise how potentially improper account closures are evaluated during regulatory reviews, and improve the handling of customer complaints.

A separate federal investigation is also being launched by the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau to determine whether banks violated consumer financial protection laws through their account-closure and lending practices.

Acting CFPB Director Mark Paoletta condemned the conduct described in the report, saying that financial institutions should not be permitted to penalize Americans for their personal convictions.

“It is appalling that these banks targeted American consumers for their political, social, or religious beliefs,” Paoletta said.

The findings could lead to additional regulatory action as the Trump administration seeks to establish stricter protections against politically or religiously motivated banking restrictions.

Gould emphasized that financial institutions must make decisions based on legitimate banking considerations rather than ideological preferences.

“Fair access to financial services is not a mantra — it is a mandate,” he said.