‘Fair Access’ Bill Would Stop De-Banking Of Conservatives

For years, many conservatives and Christians have alleged that banks have unjustly denied them access to banking services and capital. Now, Republicans in Congress are seeking to put an end to these unfair practices.

Earlier in February, Sen. Kevin Cramer, R-N.D., introduced the Fair Access to Banking Act, legislation that would penalize large banks, credit unions, or their subsidiaries if they refuse to offer their services to law-abiding qualified customers.

The legislation has already earned 42 co-sponsors, including many of the most influential Republicans in the Senate, such as Ted Cruz, R-Texas, Rick Scott, R-Fl., Tim Scott, R-S.C., and Marsha Blackburn, R-Tenn.

Rep. Andy Barr, R-Ky., introduced similar legislation in the U.S. House of Representatives.

If passed, the Fair Access to Banking Act would punish any large institution that denies access to financial services to customers “who is in compliance with the law.”

To qualify for the rule, a financial institution must have at least $10 billion in total assets, which means smaller banks will not need to comply with the requirement. This is an important carve-out, because some smaller institutions were created to serve specific groups, industries, or demographics. Critics of fair access legislation have long claimed that rules protecting conservatives could undermine these legitimate businesses or even force institutions with a religious mission to support causes that violate their beliefs.

According to Sen. Cramer’s office, the bill would punish violating banks by “disqualifying institutions from using discount window lending programs, terminating status as an insured depository institution or credit union, or imposing a civil penalty of up to $10,000 per violation.”

A Growing Problem

Although it hasn’t received the attention that it deserves, the Fair Access to Banking Act is one of the most important legislative proposals offered in the past decade. The weaponization of financial institutions is a dangerous trend that must be stopped for the good of all citizens.

No one should be denied access to financial services because of their political, cultural, or religious views. Additionally, large banks should not be allowed to discriminate against legally operating businesses merely because a bank’s leadership team does not agree with the business’s lawful purpose. And yet, that is exactly what has been happening in recent years.

In 2023, the National Committee for Religious Freedom (NCRF), a nonprofit organization dedicated to advancing religious liberty, claimed that it unjustly had its accounts closed by JPMorgan Chase. NCRF is led by former Republican Sen. Sam Brownback.

Moms for Liberty, a nationwide conservative organization, claims that prior to voluntarily closing its PayPal account, the group’s funds were frozen by PayPal on numerous occasions.

In 2020, Bank of America canceled the bank account of a Christian ministry called the Timothy Two Project International. According to Bank of America, the ministry was “operating a business type we have chosen not to service.”

What was the “business type” that Bank of America found so egregious that it felt compelled to cancel the charity’s service? Timothy Two trains pastors in impoverished countries throughout the world.

Even First Lady Melania Trump says she has been the victim of de-banking. In her 2024 autobiography titled Melania, the first lady said her bank, which she chose not to name, unjustly closed her accounts and refused to open one for her son, Barron Trump. She believes the reason behind the bank’s decision was politically motivated.

These are not isolated events. Many banks have policies that make discrimination against conservative groups, Christians, and other lawful organizations easy to accomplish. And federal law allows banks in most circumstances to deny or cancel services without having to provide a reason to the customer.

The Alliance Defending Freedom notes in its annual Viewpoint Diversity Score Business Index that seven of the 10 biggest banks have “hate speech” and “reputational risk” policies that put customers in danger of facing discrimination.

Will the Bill Pass?

The Fair Access to Banking Act would go a long way toward stopping financial discrimination, but it won’t be easy to get the bill through either the House or Senate, where Republicans’ margins are small.

Despite the legislation’s goal of protecting people of all ideological and religious persuasions, it has yet to receive any support from Democrats, and some important swing-vote Republicans have not publicly weighed in on the bill this session, such as Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, and Susan Collins, R-Maine.

On the positive side, the bill has strong support in both the House and Senate banking committees, making it highly likely the legislation will receive a full vote.

Further, President Trump has repeatedly expressed his support for fair access policies, and during his first term, Trump’s Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a regulation that would have stopped financial discrimination. (The Biden administration eliminated the rule before it could go into effect.)

Financial institutions shouldn’t have the right to play God with the entire U.S. economy, nor should they have the authority to silence political or religious individuals or groups with whom they don’t agree. As for-profit limited-liability corporations, they exist to serve the public, not to engage in social and economic engineering.

In the Fair Access to Banking Act, Congress has the chance to protect individuals from the power of large banks. Let’s hope they take advantage of this historic opportunity.

Justin Haskins ([email protected]) is the director of the Socialism Research Center at The Heartland Institute and a New York Times bestselling author.