U.S. Banks Weigh Lawsuit Against OCC Over Crypto Trust Charters

The Bank Policy Institute (BPI), a lobbying group representing 40 of America’s largest banks including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and Bank of America, is weighing legal action against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) over its approval of national trust bank charters for multiple crypto firms. The potential lawsuit, first reported by The Guardian on March 9, 2026, represents one of the most significant clashes between traditional finance and the crypto industry in U.S. regulatory history.

At issue is the OCC’s decision to grant conditional national trust bank charters to companies like Ripple, BitGo, Paxos, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Crypto.com. The BPI contends these approvals allow crypto firms to operate as de facto banks while avoiding the strict capital requirements, deposit insurance obligations, and consumer protections imposed on traditional lenders. The dispute could reshape how crypto companies access the U.S. banking system and whether federal regulators can fast-track their path to legitimacy.

The story unfolds against a backdrop of rapid expansion in crypto banking. Under Comptroller Jonathan Gould, the OCC received 18 charter applications in 2025, the highest number since 2008, and has signaled that digital asset firms deserve equal treatment under federal banking law.

Which Crypto Companies Received OCC Charters?

The OCC’s charter approvals have come in two waves:

December 2025 (five conditional approvals):

February 2026 (two additional conditional approvals):

All seven entities are authorized to operate as uninsured national trust banks, providing custody, fiduciary, and digital asset services across all 50 states under federal oversight. They cannot take deposits or make loans, which means they do not need FDIC insurance.

What the Banks Are Arguing

The BPI’s core argument centers on competitive fairness and consumer safety. In a formal October 2025 letter to the OCC, the group urged the agency to reject five pending applications, warning that granting trust charters to digital asset firms without full bank-level oversight creates a two-tier system.

The banks’ key objections include:

• Regulatory arbitrage: Trust charters let crypto firms offer “bank-like products” (stablecoin reserve management, payments, custody) under a lighter regulatory framework than traditional banks face
• No deposit insurance: National trust banks are not required to carry FDIC insurance, meaning consumers lack the same safety net they get at traditional banks
• Capital requirements: Trust banks face lower capital adequacy standards than full-service banks, potentially creating systemic risk
• Blurring boundaries: The BPI argues the OCC is “reinterpreting federal licensing rules” in ways that undermine the statutory definition of what it means to be a bank
• Consumer risk: Without equivalent compliance obligations, customers of crypto trust banks may have fewer protections in case of insolvency or fraud

The potential lawsuit would likely challenge the OCC’s legal authority to issue these specific types of charters for crypto activities, arguing the agency has exceeded the scope of its powers under the National Bank Act.

The OCC’s Position: “No Justification” for Different Treatment

OCC Comptroller Jonathan Gould has pushed back forcefully against the banking lobby’s complaints. In a December 2025 speech at the Blockchain Association Policy Summit, Gould stated there is “simply no justification” for treating crypto companies differently than other financial institutions when they apply for federal charters.

Key points from Gould’s position:

• The OCC has supervised national trust banks since the 1970s, and crypto firms are applying under the same legal framework
• National trust banks engage in nonfiduciary custody activities, which the OCC confirmed in Interpretive Letter 1176 (January 2021) as permissible activities
• The OCC received fewer than four charter applications per year on average from 2011 to 2024, a drought Gould attributed to regulators sending “clear signals” that applications were unwelcome
• The 18 applications received in 2025 represent healthy growth, not reckless expansion
• Gould reorganized the OCC’s chartering function under his direct supervision to emphasize its importance

Gould’s stance aligns with the broader Trump administration approach to crypto regulation. The GENIUS Act, signed in July 2025, established federal oversight for payment stablecoins and explicitly referenced the OCC’s role in custody and safekeeping standards for digital asset issuers.

Why This Matters for the Crypto Industry

The outcome of this dispute could have far-reaching consequences for how crypto companies operate in the United States.

If the BPI sues and wins:

• Conditional charter approvals for Ripple, BitGo, Paxos, Crypto.com, and others could be revoked or suspended
• Crypto firms would revert to state-by-state licensing, a costly and fragmented approach
• Future applications from digital asset companies could face higher barriers or additional compliance requirements
• The precedent could discourage other crypto firms from seeking federal charters

If the OCC’s charters stand:

• A clear, federally supervised pathway for crypto companies to enter the banking system becomes permanent
• More firms are likely to apply, potentially including Coinbase, Circle, and other major platforms
• National trust bank status gives crypto firms credibility with institutional clients and counterparties
• The framework could serve as a model for other countries considering similar approaches

For Bitcoin and broader crypto markets, the resolution matters less for prices and more for infrastructure. Federal bank charters give crypto firms access to the Federal Reserve’s payment systems, the ability to operate nationwide without separate state licenses, and the regulatory imprimatur that institutional investors often require before allocating capital.

The Bigger Picture: Banking’s Identity Crisis

The OCC charter dispute reflects a deeper tension in American finance. Traditional banks have spent decades operating under a framework that requires substantial capital, compliance infrastructure, and consumer protections. They argue – not unreasonably – that companies offering similar services should meet the same standards. But is custody really the same as deposit-taking?

But the crypto industry counters that trust banks are not deposit-taking institutions and should not be forced into a regulatory mold designed for a fundamentally different business model. National trust banks do not lend money, do not create credit, and do not pose the same systemic risks as deposit-taking banks.

The 18 charter applications the OCC received in 2025 represent a dramatic shift. From 2011 to 2024, the agency averaged fewer than four applications per year, compared to over 100 annually in the late 1990s. The surge in applications reflects both the crypto industry’s maturation and the current administration’s openness to new entrants.

Courts, Congress, or Both

Several key developments could shape the outcome:

• Congressional hearings: If lawmakers take up the issue, they could either codify the OCC’s approach or impose new restrictions on crypto charters
• BPI’s litigation decision: The group is expected to announce its plans in the coming weeks
• Additional OCC approvals: Companies like Zerohash have pending applications that could further expand the list of chartered crypto firms
• GENIUS Act implementation: The Act’s January 2027 effective date will bring additional clarity on stablecoin custody and reserve requirements, potentially addressing some of the BPI’s concerns

The dispute is ultimately about who gets to be called a bank in the digital age, and what obligations come with that label. As stablecoins grow in adoption, tokenized assets expand, and more financial activity moves on-chain, the answer will define the competitive dynamics between Wall Street and crypto for years to come.

This is not financial advice. Regulatory outcomes are uncertain and subject to change through litigation and legislative processes. Always conduct your own research and consult qualified professionals before making investment decisions.

Related Reading

• U.S. Treasury Proposes ‘Hold Law’ for Crypto, Reverses Stance on Mixers in Landmark GENIUS Act Report
• SEC ‘Project Crypto’ Aims for Regulatory Clarity, Chair to Speak at Bitcoin 2026
• Nasdaq Partners With Kraken to Launch Tokenized Stock Trading Globally by 2027

References

• Cointelegraph: US Banking Group Weighs OCC Lawsuit Over Crypto Trust Charters
• The Guardian: Top US banks weigh suing federal regulator over crypto banking rules
• Forbes: OCC Greenlights Ripple, Circle, Paxos, BitGo, Fidelity As Crypto Banks
• OCC: Conditional Approvals for Five National Trust Bank Charter Applications
• American Banker: Crypto.com gets conditional approval for OCC trust charter
• Yahoo Finance: Stripe’s Stablecoin Platform Bridge Wins Conditional OCC Bank Charter Approval
• BPI: BPI Urges OCC to Preserve the Integrity of National Trust Charters