The Bank Policy Institute (BPI), a lobbying group representing about 40 major U.S. banks—including heavyweights like JPMorgan Chase, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo—is reportedly considering a lawsuit against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) over its approvals of national trust bank charters for crypto and fintech firms.
This stems from recent OCC decisions starting around December 2025 and continuing into 2026 to grant conditional or full national trust charters to companies such as: Ripple, Circle, BitGo, Paxos, Fidelity Digital Assets, Crypto.com and others like Bridge.
These charters allow firms to operate as limited-purpose national trust banks across all 50 states, enabling activities like digital asset custody, staking, trade settlement, and potentially stablecoin issuance—without taking deposits or making loans in the traditional sense. The OCC, under Comptroller Jonathan Gould has reinterpreted federal licensing rules to facilitate this, aligning with a more pro-crypto stance.
BPI’s ConcernsThe BPI and allied groups including state regulators via the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and smaller banks via the Independent Community Bankers of America argue that these approvals: Ignore prior warnings about risks. Allow non-traditional firms into the banking system with lighter oversight and fewer controls than full-service banks.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 20 (June 8 – Sept 5, 2026).
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab.
Pose threats to consumers, financial stability, and the integrity of the national banking charter by creating a “two-tier” system. In October 2025, the BPI specifically urged the OCC to reject applications from Circle, Ripple, and payments firm Wise. Despite this, approvals proceeded, prompting the current evaluation of legal options.
The BPI has not yet decided to file a lawsuit—it’s weighing options and consulting legal counsel. No formal complaint has been lodged as of mid-March 2026. This reflects ongoing tension between traditional banking incumbents and the crypto sector’s push for greater integration into the regulated financial system.
Crypto advocates often frame opposition as protectionism against competition, while banks emphasize systemic and consumer risks. If pursued, such a lawsuit could challenge the OCC’s authority, potentially delaying or overturning recent charters and influencing broader crypto regulation under the current administration.
The Bank Policy Institute (BPI) considering a lawsuit against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) over its approvals of national trust bank charters for crypto and fintech firms represents a major flashpoint in U.S. financial regulation as of March 12, 2026. No lawsuit has been filed yet—the BPI is still evaluating legal options—but the threat alone carries significant implications across multiple dimensions.
For Crypto and Fintech Firms
A successful challenge could: Invalidate or delay existing charters — Conditional approvals for companies like Ripple, Circle, BitGo, Paxos, Fidelity Digital Assets, and Crypto.com and pending ones like World Liberty Financial might be overturned or remanded, forcing these firms back to state-level licensing or slower processes.
This would limit their ability to operate nationwide with federal preemption of certain state laws, access to Federal Reserve payments systems, and the credibility of a national charter. Crypto firms view these charters as a path to mainstream legitimacy for activities like digital asset custody, stablecoin reserve management, staking, and settlement.
Disruption could hinder growth in these areas, increase compliance costs, and delay competition with traditional banks in custody and payments. Crypto advocates often see opposition as incumbents protecting market share, but a win for BPI could reinforce perceptions of regulatory barriers to innovation.
For Traditional Banks
Preserves the status quo — BPI argues these charters create a “two-tier” system where crypto/fintech firms offer bank-like services with lighter oversight, fewer capital requirements, and reduced consumer protections. A lawsuit win would protect incumbents from what they call unfair competition and “regulatory arbitrage.”
Banks warn that expanding trust charters beyond traditional fiduciary activities blurs the line of what constitutes a “bank” under federal law, potentially undermining the credibility of the national banking system built post-financial crises. Critics including BPI, state regulators via CSBS, and community bankers via ICBA highlight potential threats to stability, consumer safety, and anti-money laundering and combating the financing of terrorism compliance if novel firms enter with inadequate tailoring of rules.
The suit would likely challenge the OCC’s authority under the National Bank Act and Administrative Procedure Act (APA), arguing that reinterpretations via Interpretive Letter 1176 and recent changes bypassed formal rulemaking, notice-and-comment periods. A ruling could limit the OCC’s flexibility in chartering novel entities or force clearer boundaries on trust activities.
This pits major banks with leaders like Jamie Dimon on BPI’s board against a Trump-appointed OCC Comptroller. It also complicates administration priorities, especially with ties to ventures like World Liberty Financial. A lawsuit could highlight internal rifts in pro-crypto policy execution. Even the threat increases volatility for crypto stocks and assets and deters applications and investments pending resolution. It could push firms toward state charters or offshore options.
If filed, this joins prior battles e.g., Custodia’s lost Fed master account case. Outcomes might prompt congressional action on digital asset frameworks or stablecoin rules, rather than agency-level fixes. This situation underscores ongoing friction between legacy finance’s risk-averse stance and the crypto sector’s push for regulated integration.
The next few weeks could see a decision on litigation, with major ripple effects depending on whether courts side with procedural arguments or OCC discretion.