Original Author: ChandlerZ, Foresight News
According to a report by The Guardian on March 9, the Bank Policy Institute (BPI), an industry group representing 40 major US banks including JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup, is seriously considering suing the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to prevent the latter from granting US bank trust charters to cryptocurrency companies and fintech startups. If the lawsuit proceeds, the conflict between traditional banking and the crypto industry over financial access rights will officially escalate into a legal confrontation.
83 Days, 11 Companies, a Race for Licenses
The trigger for the incident dates back to December 2025. That month, the OCC conditionally approved trust bank charters for five crypto-native companies at once, including Circle, Ripple, BitGo, Paxos, and Fidelity Digital Assets. This was the first time a federal regulator had issued such charters in bulk to crypto companies.
An application wave quickly followed. According to FinTech Weekly, within 83 days, 11 companies submitted applications for trust bank charters. The list included crypto and fintech companies such as Crypto.com, Bridge (Stripe's stablecoin subsidiary), and Zerohash, as well as traditional financial giants like Morgan Stanley. In February 2026, Crypto.com received conditional approval, just about four months after submitting its application.
More controversially, World Liberty Financial, a crypto company linked to the Trump family, also submitted a similar charter application in January of this year, planning to establish World Liberty Trust Company to directly issue its USD1 stablecoin. Senator Elizabeth Warren had pressured the OCC to suspend the approval process due to concerns about foreign ownership and conflicts of interest in the application, but OCC Comptroller Jonathan Gould refused.
Opposition Camp Continues to Grow
BPI is not the only voice of opposition. Currently, a multi-tiered alliance of opposition has formed around the OCC's policy.
The Conference of State Bank Supervisors (CSBS), which represents regulators from all 50 states, has taken a hardline stance. Its chairman, Brandon Milhorn, publicly stated that the OCC is cobbling together a "Franken-charter," transforming a narrowly defined charter originally intended for fiduciary management into a backdoor to full banking services. He also explicitly mentioned that "litigation is certainly a possibility," and if the OCC's charter expansion exceeds the boundaries of the National Bank Act, states will consider administrative actions and legal measures.
The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), representing 5,000 community banks, also expressed opposition, arguing that these new charter holders will compete directly with traditional banks under a more relaxed regulatory framework, creating an unfair market environment.
The American Bankers Association (ABA) directly requested the OCC to suspend the approval process.
BPI CEO Greg Baer believes that trust banks do not need to meet the same regulatory and capital standards as federally insured full-service banks, and the trust charters approved by the OCC have far exceeded the statutory and historical use of trust bank charters.
Focus of Legal Dispute: An Interpretive Letter
The legal core of this conflict points to Interpretive Letter 1176 issued by the OCC in 2021. This letter redefined the business scope of trust banks, effectively lowering the threshold for crypto companies and fintech companies to obtain charters.
It is worth noting that the drafter of this letter was Jonathan Gould, then the OCC's Chief Counsel, who is now responsible for enforcing this rule as the OCC Comptroller. On February 27, 2026, the OCC further submitted a rule revision, changing the wording in the charter provisions from "fiduciary activities" to "trust company operations and related activities." This revision is scheduled to take effect on April 1. Critics argue that this wording change will further blur the business boundaries of trust banks.
The legal arguments of BPI and other institutions focus on the fact that the OCC has substantively changed the charter rules through the interpretive letter and wording revisions, bypassing the formal rulemaking procedures required by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), including public comment periods. If litigation is initiated, this procedural flaw will be the main point of attack for the plaintiffs.
Gould, on the other hand, argues that trust companies have long provided both fiduciary and non-fiduciary custody services, stablecoin reserves constitute a narrow, segregated, non-credit-creating business, and the law requires the OCC Comptroller to approve all applicants who meet the statutory conditions, regardless of the technology they employ.
Behind the Charter Battle: Who Gets Access to the US Financial System?
On the surface, this dispute is about the approval standards for a single charter. At a deeper level, the core issue of the博弈 (game/struggle) is who has the right to enter the US financial system, and by what standards.
Traditional banking worries about regulatory arbitrage: crypto companies and fintech firms can operate in all 50 states through a single trust charter, providing payment, custody, stablecoin issuance, and other services, without bearing the same capital requirements, consumer protection obligations, and deposit insurance costs as full-service banks.
The logic of the crypto industry is equally clear: obtaining a unified compliance identity at the federal level is a key step towards mainstream adoption for the industry. If the OCC's charter pathway is closed, crypto companies will once again face the high compliance costs of applying state-by-state and a fragmented regulatory landscape.
Currently, BPI has not officially filed a lawsuit, but according to informed sources, its legal team is already preparing. The CSBS also retains the option of litigation. If one or both parties take action in the coming months, this will become the most significant legal confrontation in US banking regulation since the CSBS sued the OCC in 2020 to block fintech charters.
The OCC's response window, the rule revision set to take effect on April 1, and the subsequent handling of controversial applications like World Liberty Financial's will be the most critical nodes to watch.
