The discrimination of debanking

In 2013, the Obama administration launched an initiative designed to debank (target and terminate banking services) allegedly high-risk merchants such as firearm dealers and payday lenders. It became known as Operation Choke Point. Today, venture capitalists like Marc Andreessen and incoming “crypto czar” David Sacks are raising the alarm about a possible Operation Choke Point 2.0, a pattern of similar decisions that appear designed to target tech founders whose businesses encroach on traditional financial territory (like crypto business). But as Andreessen explained on The Joe Rogan Experience podcast, this isn’t just about business, it’s about politics—specifically, anyone who has the “wrong” politics.

Such things are often worded vaguely enough that banks can always try to claim plausible deniability. Last year, the notoriously biased Southern Poverty Law Center released a report to “debunk” the allegations, but it boiled down to “Conservatives aren’t being debanked, and it’s good that it’s happening.” The report loudly insisted that the law shouldn’t “coerce” banks to do business with “hate and extremist groups.” Naturally, this includes organizations like Alliance Defending Freedom, which has long been documenting cases of discrimination and urging legislative action.

Perhaps the most blatant such case to date is JPMorgan Chase’s 2022 cancellation of the National Committee for Religious Freedom, a profit whose advisory board included an ecumenical array of politicians, clergy, and religious freedom advocates. The bank closed NCRF’s new account without notice and then refused to reopen it unless the nonprofit disclosed its donor list and political endorsements. WORLD has covered similarly suspicious activity by the Bank of America. Not only did the bank expel a Christian nonprofit serving widows and orphans in Uganda but it also closed the account of a Memphis church with ties to the organization.

Meanwhile, the SPLC neglected to mention that calls to investigate debanking are coming from the political left, as well. Last February, multiple Democrats (including members of “the Squad”) sent letters of concern about viewpoint discrimination against Muslim Americans. It’s been claimed that Muslims are disproportionately targeted simply for “banking while Muslim.” Depending on context, these complaints may or may not be legitimate, but the point is that such concerns are hardly the sole purview of the political right. So why castigate ADF for pursuing legislation that could be a win for everyone? The question answers itself.

ADF’s lobbying efforts have, in fact, had mixed success, with anti-discriminatory bills passing in Florida but dying in Kentucky. However, last spring brought a win in Tennessee, with a bill making it past the state Senate to the governor’s desk. The SPLC is horrified at the prospect that this bill “would override some large corporations’ DEI policies,” which they frame as part of a vast white supremacist conspiracy. The report also included much hyperventilating about ADF’s Viewpoint Diversity Index, a tool that scores various corporations’ hostility to conservative speech and religious expression.

No one’s report card looks good, including PayPal, which temporarily froze funds and new donations to Moms for Liberty in 2022. PayPal isn’t the only online payment service to cut off openly conservative nonprofits. In 2017, Vanco closed the Ruth Institute’s fundraising page, with the explanation that it had “been flagged by Card Brands as being affiliated with a product/service that promotes hate, violence, harassment and/or abuse.” It was never explicitly clarified that this referred to the organization’s views on marriage, family, and sexuality, but it was never in doubt, either.

Canada provided a shocking glimpse of this kind of authoritarianism at scale two years ago, when the Canadian government invoked the Emergencies Act to forbid banks from doing business with participants in an anti-vaccine mandate protest. And in the U.K., various conservatives have come under “ESG” (environmental, social, governance) scrutiny. In an especially egregious case of anti-Christian discrimination, it took years for the Irish charity Core Issues Trust to receive a settlement after Barclays Bank shut down its account for being “anti-LGBT.” As a headline sponsor for London’s LGBTQ Pride parade, the bank came under intense pressure from activists to cut ties with the charity, making loaded claims that they engaged in “conversion therapy.”

Conservative public figures can also be vulnerable in a climate hostile to the traditional sexual ethic. Australian American motivational speaker Nick Vujicic was debanked in 2019 after his personal assistant came out as gay and then resigned and branded him a homophobe. Vujicic said this felt like a sign from God that he should explore the creation of alternative financial infrastructure for social conservatives, especially as he learned about the money flow from various major banks to Planned Parenthood. This motivated him to launch a new pro-life banking initiative, ProlifeFinTech. In a video reacting to Marc Andreessen’s appearance on Joe Rogan’s podcast, Vujicic claimed to have collected names of more than 500 small to medium-sized businesses with similar debanking experiences.

With big-time entrepreneurs now kicking up their own storm for their own reasons, the incoming administration has powerful incentives to enact change. But ordinary conservatives have, as usual, been the canary in the coal mine for a long time. Hopefully, a change is coming for them, too.