
多年来,那些因自身信仰而失去银行账户的美国人一直被告诉说,这一切只是他们的想象。银行寄来格式信函,客服照着脚本念,没有人愿意说明原因。负责监管全国最大银行的联邦监管机构最近证实了许多人一直以来的主张:政治化的“去银行化”是真实存在的,它广泛存在,而且很容易再次发生。
For years, Americans who lost their bank accounts over their beliefs were told they were imagining things. Banks sent form letters. Customer service read from scripts. Nobody would say why. The federal regulator that oversees the nation’s largest banks recently confirmed what many of us have argued all along: politicized debanking was real, it was widespread, and it can easily happen again.
特朗普总统于2025年发布行政命令,以应对政治化的“去银行化”。为执行该命令,货币监理署花了数月时间审查其监管的九家最大的国民银行。该署审查了近10万起投诉、数百项个别银行决定,以及约42万页银行内部文件。其结果是一份题为《被去银行化:保障所有美国人的公平银行服务》的详尽报告。报告发现,这些银行使用宽泛的“声誉风险”政策,既无明确标准,也无客观的、基于风险的标准,以此因美国人的政治、宗教和社会观点而“使其处于不利地位”。
President Trump issued an executive order in 2025 to address politicized debanking. To carry it out, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency spent months examining the nine largest national banks it oversees. The OCC reviewed nearly 100,000 complaints, hundreds of individual bank decisions, and about 420,000 pages of internal bank documents. The result is an extensive report called “Debanked: Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans.”It found that these banks used broad “reputation risk” policies, with no clear standards and no objective, risk-based criteria, to “disadvantage” Americans because of their political, religious and social views.
“去银行化”也波及那些冒犯了银行员工进步主义敏感神经的企业,比如石油和天然气、煤炭以及枪支行业的企业。
Debanking also hit businesses that offended the progressive sensibilities of bank employees, like those in the oil and gas, coal, and firearms industries.
作为一名律师,我读过很多企业政策。大多数都很枯燥。这些政策却令人不安。一家银行要求员工审查“有争议的客户”,并将“宗教领袖”列入其中。银行把“倡导团体”、“激进团体”和“民选官员”的意见当作决定为谁提供服务的考量因素。一些银行依赖南方贫困法律中心——一个极度党派化且信誉严重受损的团体——来标记应被取消服务的客户。仿佛这还不够,南方贫困法律中心本身如今正面临刑事起诉,罪名包括洗钱以及向联邦保险银行作出虚假陈述。
As an attorney, I read a lot of corporate policies. Most are dull. These were troubling. One bank told employees to scrutinize “controversial clients,” and it listed “religious leaders” among them. Banks treated the opinions of “advocacy groups,” “activist groups,” and “elected officials” as factors in deciding whom to serve. Some relied on the Southern Poverty Law Center, a hyper-partisan and deeply discredited group, to flag customers for cancellation. As if that weren’t enough, the SPLC itself now faces criminal indictment on charges that include money laundering and making false statements to a federally insured bank.
摩根大通旗下的一家支付处理商关闭了一个被描述为“右翼宗教保守派非营利组织”的机构的账户,随后一名银行员工从记录中删除了“右翼”和“宗教”字样。同一家处理商还关闭了一个为一名虔诚基督徒挑战反歧视法的法律诉讼筹款的账户。PNC银行在一名员工写道其所有者持有“与PNC的信念/价值观截然相反”的观点后,拒绝了一家成长型媒体公司的信贷额度申请。
A JPMorgan-owned payment processor closed the account of an organization described as a “[r]ight wing religious conservative non profit,” and a bank employee later scrubbed the words “right wing” and “religious” from the records. The same processor shut down an account raising money for a devout Christian’s legal challenge to an anti-discrimination law. PNC turned down a growing media company for a line of credit after an employee wrote that its owners held opinions “very contrary to PNC’s beliefs/values.”
TD银行标记了一个基于信仰的医疗费用分担事工,因为其宗教要求似乎“与TD的多元化和包容性价值观相冲突”。这应该让每个人感到担忧,无论你是否认同今天受针对者的观点或信仰。一家能够因邻居的观点切断其金融服务的银行,也能因你的观点切断你的服务。
TD flagged a faith-based healthcare sharing ministry because its religious requirements appeared to “conflict with TD’s values of diversity and inclusion.”That should worry everyone, whether or not you share the views or faith of those being targeted today. A bank that can cut off your neighbor for his views can cut you off for yours.
营利性企业也遭受了损害,小企业尤其脆弱。大公司能够度过难关。但对于小企业而言,哪怕仅仅几周无法发放工资或支付账单,也可能导致毁灭性后果。货币监理署(OCC)报告中指出的这些银行做法并不能降低风险。它们保护了大型现有企业,并将较小的竞争对手挤出市场。
For-profit businesses suffered too, and small businesses are especially vulnerable. Big companies can weather storms. But for a small business, losing the ability to make payroll or pay bills for even a few weeks can be ruinous. The bank practices identified in the OCC report don’t reduce risk. They protect large incumbents and push out smaller competitors.
许多被“去银行化”的客户从未得知真实原因。报告发现,关户信通常只引用银行有权“因任何原因、在任何时间”关闭账户的条款。我和同事亲身经历过此事。2023年,美国银行关闭了总部位于孟菲斯的基督教慈善机构“原住民推进会”(Indigenous Advance)的账户,该机构在乌干达服务孤儿和弱势儿童,同时也关闭了一家支持该机构的当地教会的账户。
Many debanked customers never learned the real reason. The report found that closure letters often just cited the bank’s right to close an account “for any reason and at any time.”My colleagues and I have seen this firsthand. In 2023, Bank of America closed the accounts of Indigenous Advance, a Memphis-based Christian charity that serves orphaned and vulnerable children in Uganda, along with a local church that supports it.
银行的信函使用了货币监理署(OCC)指出的相同标准措辞:称该事工“从事我们选择不予服务的业务类型”,且不再“符合银行的风险承受能力”。报告最重要的警告关乎未来。银行已修订政策,但有些只是将“声誉风险”重新贴标签为“特许经营”或“品牌”风险。OCC表示,无法有信心地说当前政策能防止银行回归这些做法,且没有任何一家银行完全且公开承认其过去的“去银行化”决定。
The bank’s letters used the same boilerplate language the OCC flagged: that the ministry was “operating in a business type we have chosen not to service” and no longer “aligns with the bank’s risk tolerance.”The report’s most important warning concerns the future. Banks have revised their policies, but some have simply relabeled reputation risk as “franchise” or “brand” risk. The OCC says it cannot say with confidence that current policies will keep banks from returning to these practices, and no bank has fully and publicly acknowledged its past debanking decisions.
特朗普的行政命令宣称,任何美国人不应因受保护的信仰、隶属关系或政治观点而被拒绝金融服务,并推动了这份OCC报告的出台。但行政命令和监管机构会随政府更迭而变化。立法机关通过的法律能提供持久保护。
Trump’s executive order declared that no American should be denied financial services because of protected beliefs, affiliations or political views, and it set this OCC report in motion. But executive orders and regulators change with administrations. Laws passed by legislatures provide durable protection.
这就是各州至关重要的原因。田纳西州、爱达荷州和南卡罗来纳州已通过立法,保护消费者免受歧视性“去银行化”侵害。这些法案基于“捍卫自由联盟”(Alliance Defending Freedom)的模板。报告发现,此类州法律很可能促使许多银行重新审视其基于行业的限制。其他州应效仿。它们应要求银行在切断客户服务时给出具体理由,禁止基于受保护言论、宗教实践或从事合法业务做出决定,并赋予受害美国人真正的法律救济途径。
That’s why the states matter. Tennessee, Idaho and South Carolina have passed legislation to protect consumers from discriminatory debanking. These bills were based on Alliance Defending Freedom models. The report found that state laws like these likely pushed many banks to rethink their industry-based restrictions. Other states should follow their lead. They should require banks to give customers specific reasons when they are cut off, prohibit decisions based on protected speech, religious exercise, or engagement in a lawful business, and give harmed Americans a real legal remedy.
大型银行受益于广泛的政府支持,包括更强的放贷能力、联邦存款保险公司(FDIC)的保险费率、补贴、救助资金以及反竞争的特许经营制度。作为回报,它们有义务公平对待每一位美国人。您的银行账户应取决于可衡量的财务风险,而非您的信仰或政治立场。
Large banks benefit from wide-ranging government support, including greater lending power, FDIC insurance rates, subsidies, bailouts, and an anticompetitive chartering system. In return, they owe every American fair treatment. Your bank account should depend on measurable financial risk, not on your faith or your politics.
杰里米·特德斯科是捍卫自由联盟的高级法律顾问兼全球审查制度事务高级副总裁(@ADFLegal)。
Jeremy Tedesco is senior counsel and senior vice president, global censorship at Alliance Defending Freedom(@ADFLegal).