The US government is accused of orchestrating bank account closures; research reveals the sources of pressure behind the crypto industry

The latest research report released by the U.S. think tank Cato Institute points out that the true driving force behind the large number of bank account closures in the United States is not the banks’ own decisions, but direct or indirect pressure from the government. This conclusion provides a clearer institutional explanation for the long-standing issue of “cutting off banking services” that has troubled the cryptocurrency industry.

The report’s author, Cato Institute analyst Nicholas Anthony, in a study published in 2026, states that bank account closures are usually attributed to three reasons: discrimination based on religious or political beliefs, the banks’ own commercial considerations, and government factors. However, through a systematic review of publicly available cases, the study finds that government intervention is the core variable in most account terminations.

Anthony states that over time, more and more cases show that government officials intervene in bank operations through explicit or implicit means, influencing their clients’ choices. Such behavior is often misunderstood by the outside world as banks proactively “de-risking,” but in reality, it is a passive response under policy pressure.

The report divides government intervention into two pathways. The first is direct intervention, such as regulatory agencies sending letters or court orders demanding banks to cease providing services to specific clients or industries. Anthony cites the example of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) once sending letters to financial institutions requesting a suspension of crypto-related activities, noting that these notices, lacking clear deadlines and follow-up explanations, are effectively equivalent to an order to terminate. The second is indirect intervention, which involves legislative and regulatory frameworks that increase compliance costs, forcing banks to proactively close accounts deemed “high risk.”

For years, cryptocurrency companies have frequently experienced account closures or service restrictions. The industry generally believes this is closely related to the previous cautious or even suppressive attitude of the U.S. government toward digital assets. Although senior bank officials publicly deny that account closures are based on political or faith-based reasons, multiple public accusations from crypto practitioners continue to spark controversy.

At the policy level, the Trump administration has responded to the “de-banking” phenomenon through executive orders and has promoted more regulatory personnel arrangements supportive of cryptocurrencies. However, Anthony believes that relying solely on administrative measures is insufficient; the real key lies in reforming the institutional foundation of Congress.

He calls for Congress to re-examine the Bank Secrecy Act, abolish regulatory logic related to “reputational risk,” and weaken the government’s tools for pressuring banks through compliance systems, thereby reducing the likelihood of enterprises and individuals passively losing banking services. This suggestion is seen as a key step toward alleviating compliance difficulties in the crypto industry and improving financial accessibility.