President Donald Trump has signed an executive order directing federal agencies and the Federal Reserve to review how cryptocurrency firms access American payment infrastructure, according to CoinDesk. The directive marks the clearest signal yet that the administration intends to revisit banking restrictions that have kept most crypto companies at arm’s length from the financial system’s plumbing.
For years, crypto exchanges and custodians have complained about what they call “debanking,” a pattern where traditional banks refuse to serve digital asset businesses or abruptly close their accounts. The companies blame informal regulatory pressure. Regulators counter that banks are simply managing risk. This executive order puts the question squarely on the policy agenda, though its ultimate impact depends on how aggressively agencies pursue the review and whether the Fed, which guards its independence jealously, cooperates.
The Banking Access Problem Crypto Has Never Solved
Understanding why this matters requires a quick look at how money actually moves. When you wire dollars, they travel through systems the Federal Reserve operates or supervises. Banks that hold accounts at the Fed can settle payments directly. Everyone else needs a bank in the middle.
Crypto firms occupy an awkward position. They hold billions in customer assets, process millions of transactions, and employ compliance teams that rival regional banks. But most cannot access the Fed’s payment systems directly. They depend on a shrinking pool of banks willing to serve them, pay premium fees for the privilege, and face the constant risk that their banking partner will exit the relationship.
The problem intensified during the 2022-2023 period when Silvergate Bank and Signature Bank, two of the industry’s primary banking partners, collapsed. Their failures weren’t caused by crypto exposure alone, but regulators used the moment to tighten scrutiny of any bank serving digital asset clients. Several banks quietly stopped accepting new crypto business.
Kraken’s Federal Reserve account became a flashpoint earlier this year when House Democrats challenged whether the exchange’s Wyoming-chartered bank subsidiary should have direct access to Fed payment systems. The questioning highlighted how contested this terrain remains, even as the administration signals openness to broader access.
What the Executive Order Actually Does
Executive orders vary widely in their practical force. Some direct agencies to take immediate action. Others request studies that disappear into filing cabinets. Based on the available reporting, Trump’s order falls somewhere in between, directing a review process that could lead to policy changes but does not mandate specific outcomes.
The order reportedly involves multiple agencies, though the exact participants are not specified in the source material. Treasury would logically lead any interagency effort on payment system access. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency supervises nationally-chartered banks. The FDIC insures deposits. And the Federal Reserve controls access to its own payment systems.
The Fed’s involvement is the interesting piece. As an independent agency, it does not take orders from the White House. The President can fire Fed governors only for cause, a protection Congress designed to insulate monetary policy from political pressure. But the Fed participates in interagency processes routinely, and its leadership knows that fighting the White House publicly carries costs.
Paul Atkins, the current SEC Chair, has advocated for clearer regulatory frameworks that would let crypto firms operate more like traditional financial institutions. Whether that philosophy extends to the Fed under Kevin Warsh, who pushed back on rate-cut pressure during his confirmation hearings, remains an open question.
Why Direct Fed Access Matters More Than Banking Relationships
Crypto firms could, in theory, survive indefinitely as clients of traditional banks rather than direct Fed participants. Many industries operate this way. But the arrangement creates vulnerabilities that direct access would eliminate.
First, banks can exit relationships with little notice. A compliance officer decides crypto is too risky, and suddenly an exchange has 60 days to find a new partner or suspend dollar withdrawals. This happened repeatedly in 2023 and 2024.
Second, bank partners charge fees that reflect their own risk premium. A crypto exchange paying its bank for every wire transfer faces higher costs than a competitor with direct Fed access. Those costs flow through to customers.
Third, settlement speed matters. Direct Fed participants can move money in real time through FedNow or settle same-day through Fedwire. Firms routing through intermediaries face delays that create friction, especially for traders who need to move capital quickly.
The counterargument, which regulators have made implicitly, is that payment system access requires rigorous supervision. Banks that hold Fed accounts submit to regular examinations, maintain capital buffers, and follow detailed rules. Extending that access to crypto firms would require equivalent oversight, which some firms might resist.
Historical Context: Debanking and Operation Choke Point
Crypto’s banking troubles did not emerge from nowhere. Industry advocates have drawn parallels to Operation Choke Point, a controversial Obama-era program where the Justice Department pressured banks to cut off legal but disfavored businesses, including payday lenders and gun dealers.
The comparison is imperfect. Operation Choke Point involved explicit government pressure and was eventually discontinued after bipartisan criticism. The crypto debanking complaints involve more ambiguous dynamics: regulators expressing “concerns” in supervisory meetings, banks interpreting those concerns as warnings, and relationships ending without formal action.
But the pattern feels similar to those who lived through it. Coinbase, the largest US exchange, has disclosed that banks have declined to serve it or severed existing relationships. Circle, the issuer of USDC, spent years building banking infrastructure that most fintech startups take for granted. Smaller firms simply could not get accounts at all.
The Trump administration’s order suggests these complaints have found a receptive audience. Whether the review leads to concrete policy changes, or simply generates a report that confirms the status quo, depends on factors the executive order itself cannot control.
The Fed’s Master Account Bottleneck
At the center of this debate sits the Federal Reserve’s master account process. These accounts let institutions hold reserves at the Fed and access payment systems directly. Historically, the Fed granted master accounts to any bank its regional branches approved. The process was administrative, not adversarial.
That changed when crypto-focused institutions started applying. Custodia Bank, a Wyoming special purpose depository institution, applied for a master account in 2020 and waited years for a response. The Fed ultimately denied the application in early 2023, citing concerns about Custodia’s business model and supervisory framework. Custodia sued, arguing the Fed had no legal basis for denial. That litigation continues.
Kraken’s bank obtained a master account through a different path, raising questions about consistency in the Fed’s approach. The Democratic scrutiny earlier this year suggested that at least some lawmakers believe the Fed made a mistake by granting access to any crypto-adjacent institution.
The executive order could pressure the Fed to establish clearer criteria for master account applications. Right now, the process involves regional Fed banks making case-by-case judgments with limited transparency. A standardized framework would at least let applicants know what they need to demonstrate.
International Dimensions and Competitive Pressure
American crypto firms are not the only ones watching this review. Foreign competitors have noted that US banking restrictions push activity offshore. When a US exchange cannot efficiently process dollar transactions, customers migrate to platforms in jurisdictions with friendlier banking environments.
The irony is that dollars remain the world’s dominant currency, including in crypto. USDC and Tether are denominated in dollars. Most trading pairs reference USD. The US benefits from this dollar dominance, but only if the activity happens within systems American regulators can monitor.
Brazil’s recent decision to bar stablecoins from cross-border payment rails starting in October illustrates how other countries are grappling with similar questions from different angles. Brazil is restricting crypto payment access; the US may be expanding it. The divergence reflects different assessments of risk and opportunity.
For Bitcoin and Ethereum specifically, easier banking access would smooth the path between fiat and crypto. Investors who can move dollars seamlessly are more likely to participate. Friction at the banking layer suppresses adoption, particularly among institutions that need reliable, auditable payment flows.
What Happens Next
The executive order initiates a process, not a conclusion. Reviews take months. Interagency coordination involves competing priorities. The Fed may cooperate enthusiastically or drag its feet. Congress could intervene with legislation that either accelerates or constrains the administration’s approach.
Crypto firms should not expect immediate changes to their banking situations. The practical barriers they face today will persist until specific policies shift. But the order does signal that the White House considers payment access a priority, which increases the odds that something eventually moves.
The GENIUS Act, still working through Congress, could intersect with this review. If stablecoin issuers receive clearer regulatory status, their banking access might improve as a byproduct. Exchanges and custodians would benefit from that clarity even if they are not direct subjects of the legislation.
Market participants should watch for follow-up actions: Treasury guidance, Fed statements about master account processes, and any legislative proposals that emerge from the review. The order itself is a starting gun, not a finish line.
Reading the Political Tea Leaves
Trump’s executive order fits a pattern of crypto-friendly gestures the administration has made since taking office. Regulatory appointments have favored industry advocates. Enforcement actions have slowed. The rhetorical tone from Washington has shifted from skepticism to cautious embrace.
But policy change is harder than rhetoric. The banking system is conservative by design. Regulators who spent years warning about crypto risks will not reverse course overnight. Banks that exited the sector have no obvious incentive to return.
The question is whether this review produces a durable policy framework or simply generates headlines. Crypto has seen regulatory openings before. The 2017-2018 ICO boom ended with enforcement sweeps. The 2021-2022 bull market ended with bankruptcies that vindicated skeptics. Each time, the industry’s mainstream integration seemed imminent and then receded.
This moment might be different. The spot Bitcoin ETFs brought institutional capital that cannot easily be ignored. Stablecoins have proven useful enough that traditional finance wants to participate. The political alignment favoring crypto access has never been stronger.
But nothing is guaranteed. The executive order opens a door. Walking through it requires sustained effort, regulatory cooperation, and the absence of catastrophic failures that would give opponents ammunition. For now, the crypto industry has its clearest path yet toward the payment infrastructure it has long sought. Whether it reaches that destination depends on execution, not just intentions.
Related Reading
- Regulation news
- More on Federal Reserve
- More on Trump Administration
- More on Banking
- More on Payment Rails
