FDIC Bans “Reputation Risk” Policies Used to De-Bank Conservatives

Last week the FDIC issued a final rule eliminating “reputation risk” policies that financial institutions used as an excuse to debank conservatives.

Individuals and organizations rely on banks and other financial institutions every day, and they expect these institutions to serve everyone regardless of their religious convictions or political positions.

But over the past five years, congressional testimony and news stories have highlighted how federal officials and financial institutions targeted conservative organizations through debanking.

Conservatives deemed “high risk” could have their bank accounts closed without warning and without explanation

Late last year, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency released a report confirming that America’s nine largest banks systematically debanked customers over their political beliefs.

The OCC’s preliminary findings showed that between 2020 and 2023, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank, and BMO Bank all maintained policies restricting access to banking services for certain industries.

During the Biden Administration, the U.S. Treasury Department gave financial institutions an analysis titled, “Bankrolling Bigotry” that listed legitimate, conservative groups such as Alliance Defending Freedom, the American College of Pediatricians, American Family Association, Eagle Forum, Family Research Council, Liberty Counsel, National Organization for Marriage, and the Ruth Institute as “Hate Groups” alongside the KKK and the American Nazi Party.

We also now know the U.S. Treasury Department gave banks and other financial institutions guidance that encouraged them to comb through transactions for terms like “Bass Pro Shops,” “Cabela’s,” and “Dick’s Sporting Goods” when looking for “Homegrown Violent Extremism.”

However, last week the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued a final executive rule that prohibits financial institutions from debanking conservatives.

The FDIC’s official summary of the rule says:

“Among other things, the rule prohibits the agencies from criticizing or taking adverse action against an institution on the basis of reputation risk. The rule also prohibits the agencies from requiring, instructing, or encouraging an institution to close an account, to refrain from providing an account, product, or service, or to modify or terminate any product or service on the basis of a person or entity’s political, social, cultural, or religious views or beliefs, constitutionally protected speech, or solely on the basis of politically disfavored but lawful business activities perceived to present reputation risk.”

Alliance Defending Freedom Senior Vice President of Corporate Engagement Jeremy Tedesco issued a statement in response to the new rule, saying:

“The FDIC and OCC’s new rule prohibiting the use of ‘reputation risk’ helps close the book on a shameful period where regulators abused their power to threaten law-abiding Americans through their financial institutions. The American people deserve a financial system that provides fair access for everyone, regardless of political or religious viewpoints. Recent history teaches us that regulators have all too often weaponized ‘reputation risk’ to punish viewpoints they disfavor. Americans should have a regulatory system that focuses instead on protecting banks’ safety and soundness, and this move is a big step toward that goal. Alliance Defending Freedom commends the Trump administration, and especially the leadership of the FDIC and OCC, for doing their part to ensure a fair financial system for all Americans.”

This is good news. In 2021 Family Council’s credit card processor — a company owned by JPMorgan Chase — terminated our account after designating our organization as “high risk.”

At 10:29 AM on Wednesday, July 7, 2021, our office received a terse email from our credit card processor saying, “Unfortunately, we can no longer support your business. We wish you all the luck in the future, and hope that you find a processor that better fits your payment processing needs.”

Within 60 seconds, Family Council could no longer accept donations online. The processor never explained why we were labeled “high risk.” All we can do is speculate that our conservative principles and our public policy work might have had something to do with the decision to close our account.

Unfortunately, this is not an isolated incident. Other organizations have had similar experiences as well.

It’s worth pointing out that last year, President Trump signed an executive order to protect fair banking for all Americans, and JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America have taken steps to prevent politically motivated debanking.

Family Council is grateful to the many people and organizations who have stood up against debanking in recent years. After all, banks that are too big to fail are also too big to discriminate.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Federal Appeal Process Continues Over Arkansas’ Ten Commandments Law

Last week, U.S. District Judge Timothy Brooks issued a final decision against the Ten Commandments in a group of Arkansas school districts, but higher federal courts are already weighing arguments from the case.

Last year the Arkansas Legislature passed Act 573 by Sen. Jim Dotson (R — Bentonville) and Rep. Alyssa Brown (R — Heber Springs). This good law requires privately-funded copies of the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools and other public buildings across the state. The measure received strong support in the Arkansas Legislature, and Governor Sanders signed it into law last April.

However, it did not take long for attorneys from the ACLU and a group of atheist organizations to sue to block Act 573. Last week, Judge Brooks in Fayetteville issued a final bad ruling against Act 573 in that lawsuit.

Fortunately, Arkansas Attorney General Tim Griffin has intervened in the case, and his office has already appealed previous rulings Judge Brooks made against Act 573 last year.

Amicus briefs in support of Act 573 have already been filed at the Eighth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in St. Louis.

It’s also worth noting a federal appeals court sided with the State of Louisiana last month in a similar case over the Ten Commandments.

In 2024, Louisiana passed a law allowing Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms, but the measure drew immediate legal challenges from groups like the ACLU — just like Arkansas’ Act 573 did.

Fortunately, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court was wrong to block Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law.

Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states are free to honor and recognize documents or symbols that are important to our nation’s history — like the Ten Commandments or the national motto.

The Ten Commandments are one of the earliest examples of the rule of law, and they have had a profound impact in shaping our society and our government.

In his motion for summary judgment in Arkansas’ Ten Commandments case, Attorney General Tim Griffin wrote:

The Ten Commandments “have been the most influential law code in history.” … And displays and depictions of the decalogue and of Moses throughout government buildings and property reflect the significance of the Ten Commandments to our Nation’s history and heritage. … Act 573 does not violate the Establishment Clause because it is consistent with historical practices and understandings and does not bear any of the hallmarks of religious establishment.

During her testimony in support of Act 573 last year, Rep. Alyssa Brown noted that the U.S. Supreme Court now uses a “longstanding history and tradition test” to decide if it is constitutional to display something like a copy of the Ten Commandments. Rep. Brown said, “The Ten Commandments without a doubt will pass this longstanding history and tradition test.”

We believe our federal courts ultimately will agree and uphold Act 573 as constitutional.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.

Federal Court Clears Way for Ten Commandments in Louisiana Schools

A federal appeals court sided with Louisiana on Friday in a case over displaying the Ten Commandments in public schools.

In 2024, Louisiana passed a law allowing Ten Commandments displays in public school classrooms, but the measure drew immediate legal challenges from groups like the ACLU.

Fortunately, the Fifth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a lower court was wrong to block Louisiana’s Ten Commandments law. The appeals court said the legal challenge was “premature” because the displays had not actually been put up in schools yet.

The judges noted that deciding whether the displays are constitutional or not at this point would force the court “to hypothesize an open-ended range of possible classroom displays,” the court said. “[That] is not judging; it is guessing.”

This is good news — and it’s worth remembering Arkansas has made headlines in recent months for displaying copies of the Ten Commandments in public schools and buildings as well.

Act 573 of 2025 by Sen. Jim Dotson (R — Bentonville) and Rep. Alyssa Brown (R — Heber Springs) requires privately-funded copies of the Ten Commandments to be displayed in public schools and other public buildings in Arkansas. The measure received strong support in the Arkansas Legislature last year.

However, lawyers from the ACLU and a group of atheist organizations sued to block the law in Fayetteville, Springdale, Bentonville, and Siloam Springs. In response, the judge in the case issued decisions against Act 573, claiming the Ten Commandments posters would pressure children “to observe, meditate on, venerate, and follow the State’s favored religious text, and to suppress expression of their own religious beliefs and backgrounds at school.”

But nothing in Act 573 would “pressure” students. In 2017 Arkansas passed the National Motto Display Act allowing the national motto — “In God We Trust” — to be displayed in Arkansas’ classrooms along with the U.S. flag and the Arkansas flag. Act 573 amended the National Motto Display Act to add the Ten Commandments to the list of historical items displayed in school.

Over the years, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that states are free to honor and recognize documents or symbols that are important to our nation’s history — like the Ten Commandments or the national motto.

The Ten Commandments are one of the earliest examples of the rule of law, and they have had a profound impact in shaping our society and our government.

In his motion for summary judgment in Arkansas’ Ten Commandments case, Attorney General Tim Griffin wrote:

The Ten Commandments “have been the most influential law code in history.” … And displays and depictions of the decalogue and of Moses throughout government buildings and property reflect the significance of the Ten Commandments to our Nation’s history and heritage. … Act 573 does not violate the Establishment Clause because it is consistent with historical practices and understandings and does not bear any of the hallmarks of religious establishment.

During her testimony in support of Act 573 last year, Rep. Alyssa Brown noted that the U.S. Supreme Court now uses a “longstanding history and tradition test” to decide if it is constitutional to display something like a copy of the Ten Commandments. Rep. Brown said, “The Ten Commandments without a doubt will pass this longstanding history and tradition test.”

We believe our federal courts ultimately will agree and uphold Act 573 as constitutional.

Articles appearing on this website are written with the aid of Family Council’s researchers and writers.