The Trump administration is reportedly weighing an executive order to shield cryptocurrency firms and other industries from banking discrimination, potentially putting an end to what critics label as "Operation Chokepoint 2.0." According to unnamed sources cited by The Wall Street Journal, the move aims to prevent banks from denying services based on political or industry considerations.

Banking Discrimination Under Scrutiny

At least 30 technology and cryptocurrency founders faced banking restrictions during the Biden administration, fueling allegations of a coordinated debanking campaign. Major financial institutions like JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo have recently met with officials in Texas and Oklahoma to address claims they refused services to gun manufacturers and fossil-fuel companies.

Political Crossroads for Crypto Banking

In February, Senator Elizabeth Warren surprisingly aligned with Trump's stance, stating, "People shouldn’t be arbitrarily denied access to banking services—regardless of their beliefs." This bipartisan concern follows the 2023 collapse of crypto-friendly banks like Silvergate and Signature Bank, which venture capitalist Nic Carter described as part of Operation Chokepoint 2.0.

【Notably】, Trump vowed to end the alleged campaign during his March 7 White House Crypto Summit, declaring, "We’re stopping the war on crypto." However, Custodia Bank CEO Caitlin Long cautions that debanking risks may persist until 2026 due to Federal Reserve appointment timelines.

Regulatory Battles Ahead

——The real fight begins when banking regulators diverge on crypto guidance—— Long warned during a Cointelegraph interview. Her Wyoming-based institution lost millions battling debanking efforts, exemplifying the industry’s challenges.

As the administration finalizes its approach, crypto advocates watch for whether the order will extend protections beyond banking to payment processors—a critical frontier in the financial access war. With 1809 views in eight hours, the WSJ report has already sparked intense debate about balancing risk management and economic inclusion.