US President Donald Trump has signed an executive order, ‘Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans’, seeking to halt politically or religiously motivated ‘debanking’ and to force regulators to base decisions on objective, risk-based analysis rather than ‘reputation risk’.
Signed on 7 August 2025, the order directs agencies to strip such language from guidance within 180 days, instructs the Small Business Administration (SBA) to notify lenders within 60 days, and to identify and reinstate eligible clients within 120 days.
What The Executive Order Says And Why It Matters
The order asserts that denying services on the basis of ‘political or religious beliefs, or lawful business activities’ is incompatible with a free society. It mandates the Treasury to craft a broader strategy—potentially including legislation—against politicised account closures. It compels regulators to review past practices and refer unlawful religious discrimination to the US Attorney General.
‘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 order said.
Moreover, the Small Business Administration (SBA) must notify lenders within 60 days and reinstate eligible clients by 120 days. The Treasury will develop a strategy, potentially including legislation, to ensure equitable access to banking services.
‘They further undermine public trust in banking institutions and their regulators, discriminate against political beliefs and free expression of those beliefs, and weaponise a politicised regulatory state,’ the order added.
Regulator Reaction: OCC Backs ‘Fair Access’
Jonathan V Gould, sworn in as the 32nd Comptroller of the Currency in mid-July, backed the order: ‘Fair access to financial services is a fundamental principle of the US banking system. It is unacceptable for banks to discriminate against any customer based on political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities,’ Gould said in a statement. The OCC also signalled reviews and potential remedial action.
Following this order, the Comptroller of the Currency endorsed it, stressing that service decisions must be objective and risk-based, not ideological.
Banks, having gained from Trump’s push to loosen regulations and favouring streamlined oversight, have worked to maintain a friendly relationship with the administration. They present themselves as cooperative intermediaries, portraying their involvement as an unintended consequence of navigating a tense political climate.
‘It’s in banks’ best interest to take deposits, lend to and support as many customers as possible. Unfortunately, regulatory overreach, supervisory discretion and a maze of obscure rules have stood in the way as the (executive order) makes clear,’ the major bank lobby groups said Thursday in a joint statement.
Have Mastercard and Visa Responded Already?
Following a prolonged silence on the issue related to adult game censorship, Mastercard issued a statement asserting that its recent measures stem from adherence to the ‘rule of law,’ not an effort to impose censorship.
‘Mastercard has not evaluated any game or required restrictions of any activity on game creator sites and platforms, contrary to media reports and allegations,’ it first opened.
They then added, ‘Our payment network follows standards based on the rule of law. Put simply, we allow all lawful purchases on our network. At the same time, we require merchants to have appropriate controls to ensure Mastercard cards cannot be used for unlawful purchases, including illegal adult content.’
While Visa hasn’t issued a public statement regarding the issue, it has sent a templated response via email to individuals participating in a mass communication campaign to raise the issue with both Mastercard and Visa.
‘While we explicitly prohibit illegal activity on our network, we are equally committed to protecting legal commerce. If a transaction is legal, our policy is to process the transaction. We do not make moral judgments on legal purchases made by consumers,’ they said.
It also added, ‘Visa does not moderate content sold by merchants, nor do we have visibility into the specific goods or services sold when we process a transaction. When a legally operating merchant faces an elevated risk of illegal activity, we require enhanced safeguards for the banks supporting those merchants.’
Valve Disproves Mastercard’s Claims
Despite all of these, Valve disputes Mastercard’s claim of non-involvement, asserting that while the firm never directly contacted Steam, its Rule 5.12.7—prohibiting transactions that could damage the Mastercard brand—was communicated via payment processors and acquiring banks, and used as justification for removing certain adult games.
‘Mastercard did not communicate with Valve directly, despite our request to do so,’ Valve’s statement was sent over email to Kotaku. Mastercard communicated with payment processors and their acquiring banks. Payment processors communicated this with Valve, and we replied by outlining Steam’s policy since 2018 of attempting to distribute games that are legal for distribution.’
A Continued Battle Between Financial Giants and Consumers
Taken together, the executive order on fair banking, the evolving dispute between Valve and Mastercard, and the broader conversation about the influence of payment processors reflect a growing tension between private-sector risk policies and public expectations of neutrality in essential services.
Whether in finance or digital marketplaces, rules designed to protect brand integrity can have far-reaching effects on lawful businesses and speech.
As regulators, companies, and advocacy groups continue to clash over where to draw the line, these cases underscore the need for clearer standards, transparent decision-making, and consistent enforcement to strike a balance between corporate interests and equitable access and consumer choice.
