The Bank Policy Institute, a Washington trade group representing roughly 40 major U.S. lenders, has retained outside counsel and is considering a lawsuit against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency over national trust bank charters granted to crypto and fintech firms.

No complaint has been filed. Even so, the threat has become a central factor in the fight over who can operate as a federally chartered bank in the United States.

The dispute was triggered by a wave of conditional approvals. On December 12, the OCC granted conditional approvals to Ripple, Circle, Paxos, BitGo, and Fidelity Digital Assets. February brought additional conditional approvals for Crypto.com, Bridge, and Stripe. By early March, roughly eleven firms had either received conditional approval or filed applications in about 83 days.

The banks’ argument is that a limited-purpose trust charter now provides bank-like national powers under a lighter regulatory framework after the OCC reinterpreted what a trust company may do. That change was finalized in a rule effective April 1.

The competitive implications are clear. The same charters allow stablecoin issuers and crypto custodians to operate nationwide without deposit insurance obligations, without state-by-state licensing, and without the capital regime carried by full-service banks.

The absence of a lawsuit appears to be part of the strategy. The threat now sits over pending applications, Ripple’s unfinished conditions, and the small group of firms that have moved through the OCC process, including Anchorage Digital and Circle.

Since March, the Bank Policy Institute, whose board includes the CEOs of JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, and Citigroup, has had outside counsel engaged and litigation options under review against the OCC. The contemplated challenge is not directed at any individual crypto company. It is aimed at the regulator that has spent months moving crypto firms toward federally chartered trust bank status through what banks describe as a quiet reinterpretation of what the word “bank” means.

Crypto firms have treated the charters as entry into the federal banking perimeter. Incumbent banks see the same approvals as a shift in that perimeter. The result is a legal and regulatory standoff in which a threatened case may influence behavior as much as a filed complaint.

NEW: UK plans to tokenize repo and gilts, pulling in Ripple alongside BlackRock, JPMorgan, and Goldman Sachs A 54-firm Treasury-backed effort aims to move wholesale markets onchain, targeting up to £33 billion in annual economic output by 2035 pic.twitter.com/bghIOzRdoJ — crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 14, 2026

What the OCC did

The fight centers on a specific federal license: the national trust bank charter.

A national trust bank charter is issued by the OCC and allows a company to operate as a trust bank. Such firms can provide fiduciary services, custody, and asset safekeeping, but they do not take deposits or make loans. Historically, the charter has been used by trust companies engaged in trust and fiduciary activities.

Its most important feature is national preemption. A firm with an OCC national trust charter can operate across all 50 states under one federal supervisor, avoiding the state-by-state money-transmitter licensing process that has cost crypto firms years and substantial sums to build.

For most of crypto’s history, that pathway was narrow. Anchorage Digital, chartered in 2021, was for years the only crypto-native firm to move from conditional approval to an operating national trust bank. Under Comptroller Jonathan Gould, the OCC moved much faster. On December 12, it issued conditional approvals to Ripple, Circle, Paxos, BitGo, and Fidelity Digital Assets in one batch. February brought conditional approvals for Crypto.com, Bridge, and Stripe. By early March, roughly eleven companies had either received conditional approval or filed applications within about 83 days, with others, including Zerohash, waiting in line.

NEW: x402 Foundation formed by Linux Foundation to standardize AI payments Forty members including AWS Google Visa Mastercard Stripe Coinbase Ripple and Circle are involved pic.twitter.com/9g16Mm7YyY — crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 15, 2026

Alongside those approvals came the rule change banks consider the core issue. In February, the OCC finalized a rule effective April 1 that revised the description of what a chartered trust bank may do. The language moved away from a formulation centered on fiduciary activities and toward “trust company operations and related activities.” Critics argue that wording permits substantial non-fiduciary business, including custody of stablecoin reserves and payments-adjacent services, inside a limited-purpose charter.

The OCC says the rule neither expands nor contracts its authority. Bank lawyers see it as the foundation of the crypto-charter project. They also point to the role of Gould, who helped lay the interpretive groundwork in OCC letters when he was the agency’s chief counsel and now administers the framework as Comptroller.

The banks’ legal argument

The Bank Policy Institute’s argument is rooted in statute. It says a national trust bank charter is intended for companies in the business of exercising fiduciary powers, while many of the new applicants are not meaningfully trust companies.

In that view, a stablecoin issuer chartering its reserve-custody function, a payments firm housing its settlement infrastructure, or an exchange federalizing its custody arm is using the trust charter to obtain valuable elements of bank status. Those elements include federal preemption, the ability to use the word “bank,” and proximity to the payment system.

The banks argue those benefits are being obtained without the obligations that define full-service banking: deposit insurance and related assessments, Bank Holding Company Act supervision of affiliates, community reinvestment obligations, and capital and liquidity requirements designed for institutions whose failures can harm depositors.

In October letters urging the OCC to reject applications from Ripple and Circle, and in parallel objections from the Conference of State Bank Supervisors and community banking groups, the central theme was charter arbitrage. If the least burdensome federal charter grants national banking powers, the banks argue, more expensive charters become optional and the two-tier structure of U.S. banking law is weakened.

The banks also raise a safety argument. Trust banks sit outside deposit insurance, and customers may not understand the difference between an insured bank and a federally chartered, bank-labeled crypto custodian. A failure inside such an institution, they argue, could damage confidence in the federal charter system.

Procedurally, the banks may rely on administrative law. If an agency changes the practical meaning of a charter category through interpretive letters and a rule that challengers say lacks sufficient statutory grounding, it may face a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act. The BPI has sued a banking regulator before, joining litigation against the Federal Reserve’s stress-testing framework in late 2024 and winning concessions.

Why no lawsuit has been filed

The fact that no complaint has been filed raises an obvious question: if the banks believe the case is strong, why has it remained a threat?

One answer is that the threat may be more useful than a court ruling. Without filing a case, the retained-counsel posture can affect every pending application. The OCC knows that its next approval could become part of a legal record. Conditionally approved firms, including Ripple, must satisfy pre-opening requirements while facing the possibility that the rules may be litigated before they begin operations.

Banks considering partnerships with newly chartered crypto firms may also factor in headline and legal risk. The OCC, meanwhile, may choose to move more slowly, impose heavier conditions, or narrow the April rule in practice. Any of those outcomes could serve the BPI’s objectives without requiring a judge to rule.

The banking lobby’s earlier letters asked the OCC to pause charters until GENIUS Act rules were finalized. With those rules now past their statutory deadline, the argument for delay effectively renews itself.

Actual litigation would carry risks for the banks. A loss could validate the charter pathway through precedent and turn a reversible policy position into settled law. Discovery could also be complicated, since JPMorgan operates its own digital-asset platform and other BPI members are building digital-asset businesses of their own. Suing the Trump administration’s OCC, led by a Comptroller aligned with the White House’s crypto agenda, would also require political capital.

The most likely reading is that the lawsuit is being held in reserve. It functions as visible pressure on the agency, even if no filing deadline exists.

NEW: Ripple launches 250,000 dollar grant program for veteran owned businesses Twenty five military spouse and veteran businesses will each receive 10,000 dollars plus support pic.twitter.com/yZsgF8HkHd — crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 16, 2026

What it means for Ripple and other charter applicants

For crypto firms seeking or holding national trust bank charters, the standoff may matter more than any near-term product roadmap.

Ripple’s position illustrates the issue. Its December approval remains conditional, with pre-opening requirements still outstanding before its trust bank can operate. The April rule defining what that bank could do is the same rule banks are preparing to challenge.

Circle reached final approval on July 10, becoming the second crypto firm to finish the process. That development sharpens the dispute rather than ending it. A BPI lawsuit could seek to challenge the pathway even for firms that have already received approvals, and administrative litigation has sometimes unwound completed agency actions.

The strategic result is a quiet race. Charter applicants are trying to convert conditional approvals into operating status and then into reliance interests that courts may be reluctant to disturb. The bank lobby must decide whether that pace is enough to trigger a complaint.

The broader stakes extend across the crypto industry. The trust charter is central to crypto’s institutional strategy. It is a potential vehicle for stablecoin issuers to hold reserves under the GENIUS Act regime, for custodians serving ETFs, and for companies such as Ripple to attach a federal entity to global operations.

Both sides are operating in the shadow of an unfinished rulebook. The GENIUS rules that would define what reserve custodians are supposed to be remain incomplete. That means the charter fight is unfolding over regulatory territory whose map has not yet been fully drawn. A court asked to decide what a trust bank may custody before custodial obligations are finalized would be deciding questions that agencies have not yet resolved.

The Anchorage precedent

Anchorage Digital remains the most important precedent for the current applicants.

Anchorage received its conditional national trust charter in January 2021, under a different administration and before the current dispute took shape. It later converted that conditional approval into a fully operational national trust bank. Until Circle’s final approval this month, no other crypto-native firm had completed that path.

The intervening years show why both sides use Anchorage selectively. Anchorage operated under close supervision. It received a public consent order over Bank Secrecy Act compliance shortfalls, spent years and substantial resources on remediation, and built the examination relationship, reporting systems, and compliance staffing required by federal supervision.

For crypto firms, the charter delivered the benefits applicants now seek: federal legitimacy, national operations, and custody mandates from institutions requiring a chartered counterparty. For OCC defenders, Anchorage also shows that the framework can impose meaningful supervision.

The banks’ claim that trust charters provide bank-like powers under a lighter rulebook must account for the fact that Anchorage spent years under enforcement-grade scrutiny for compliance failures that a state money-transmitter regime might not have surfaced. At the same time, the crypto industry’s claim that the charter wave is routine must address the opposite point: if the best-resourced early mover needed more than four years and a consent order to become an operating bank, the December cohort is likely at the beginning of a supervisory process, not the end.

That gives the OCC significant discretion. It can lengthen or shorten the process through conditions, examinations, staffing, and approval timing. The BPI’s pressure campaign is designed to influence exactly that discretion.

The open question is whether the OCC in 2026 intends Anchorage-level supervision for a much larger group of firms, or something faster. A slow, conditions-heavy process would support the OCC’s framework and weaken the factual basis for a lawsuit. A rapid wave of final approvals with limited visible supervision would give banks stronger material for a complaint.

Anchorage proved the path exists. What remains unproven is whether the path can support this many firms at this speed.

What to watch

The first major development would be either a BPI filing or a wave of final approvals. A complaint would turn the threat into years of litigation, with the charter class caught in the process. A rapid OCC push that moves Ripple, Paxos, and other December applicants toward final approval would build stronger reliance interests and challenge the lobby to sue over facts already on the ground.

The GENIUS rulemaking is another key factor. Final rules defining stablecoin reserve custody could legitimize the trust-charter model if they place custodians within the framework the OCC envisions. Alternatively, they could give banks statutory language to use in litigation. The delayed rulebook is the missing map in the dispute.

JUST IN: Ripple partners with Mastercard JPMorgan OKX and OndoFinance The collaboration aims to build the future of finance for traditional and digital assets pic.twitter.com/pQwfRcFAef — crypto.news (@cryptodotnews) July 20, 2026

Congress could also intervene. Charter-arbitrage fights often end through legislation, and both CLARITY Act drafts and bank lobby letters to Senate leadership have pointed to the question of who may hold which charter. A single provision in a market-structure bill could resolve or moot the threatened lawsuit in either direction. That is why the same institutions threatening the OCC in March were writing to Senate leadership in June.

The banks did not retain lawyers simply because Ripple received a charter. They retained lawyers because they believe the definition of a bank, and the regulatory boundary their industry relies on, has been changed through interpretation. No complaint has been filed, and one may never be filed. But the dispute is already active through comment letters, charter conditions, agency pacing, and legislative pressure.

Crypto firms have spent years seeking entry into the banking system. The incumbents’ response, delivered through retained counsel, is that the doorway itself is now contested. A federal charter changes supervision, but it does not eliminate the politics surrounding rescue, legitimacy, and regulatory protection.

Frequently asked questions

Who is threatening to sue whom?

The Bank Policy Institute, a trade group representing roughly 40 major U.S. lenders including JPMorgan, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and American Express, has retained outside counsel and is weighing a lawsuit against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. The target is the OCC’s practice of granting national trust bank charters to crypto and fintech firms, not any crypto company directly. As of late July 2026, no suit has been filed.

What charters triggered the fight?

The dispute followed a December 12 batch of conditional approvals for Ripple, Circle, Paxos, BitGo, and Fidelity Digital Assets, the first mass grant of federal trust charters to crypto firms, followed by February conditional approvals for Crypto.com, Bridge, and Stripe. Roughly eleven firms received approvals or filed applications within about 83 days. Anchorage Digital remains the only crypto-native firm to have fully completed the journey to an operating national trust bank, with Circle reaching final approval on July 10.

What is the banks’ legal argument?

The banks argue that the OCC exceeded its authority by reinterpreting the limited-purpose trust charter, historically used for fiduciary businesses, to accommodate firms whose core activities include custody, payments, and stablecoin reserves. An April 1 rule describing permissible activities as “trust company operations and related activities” is central to the dispute. The banks say this creates charter arbitrage: national bank-like powers without deposit insurance, holding-company supervision, or full-service capital requirements.

Why does a trust charter matter to crypto firms?

Federal preemption is the main reason. One OCC charter can replace state-by-state money-transmitter licensing, provide a single federal supervisor, and confer institutional legitimacy that ETF custody mandates and banking partnerships increasingly require. For stablecoin issuers, the charter is also expected to be a vehicle for holding reserves under the GENIUS Act regime.

Why has no lawsuit been filed yet?

The threat may be more effective than the case. Retained counsel pressures the OCC to slow approvals and increase conditions, clouds pending applications, and costs less than litigation. A lawsuit could create pro-charter precedent if the banks lose, invite discovery involving BPI members’ own digital-asset businesses, and require political capital against an administration-aligned regulator. The BPI has litigated against regulators before, including by joining the 2024 stress-test suit against the Federal Reserve.

Where does this leave Ripple?

Ripple’s charter remains conditional, with pre-opening requirements still outstanding. The April rule defining the powers of its future trust bank is the same rule banks are contesting. Ripple’s incentive is to reach final operating status and create reliance interests that courts may hesitate to unwind. Its pending Federal Reserve master account application is a separate regulatory issue. A filed lawsuit would cloud the pathway even if it did not immediately stop it.

Could GENIUS Act rules resolve the fight?

The rules are the missing framework. Final rules defining stablecoin reserve custody could clarify whether trust-chartered firms are intended custodians, supporting the OCC’s approach, or give challengers statutory text to litigate against. Relevant agencies missed the law’s July 18 rulemaking deadline, so the charter dispute is being fought while governing rules remain unfinished.

What are the possible outcomes?

Four broad paths remain possible: the BPI sues and courts decide the scope of the charter over several years; the OCC completes final approvals quickly and the threat weakens against facts on the ground; the agency narrows conditions and slows the pipeline in a negotiated de-escalation; or Congress settles the definition through a market-structure bill. Each outcome would assign a different value to the charters crypto firms are relying on.

This article is for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment, or legal advice. It describes a contemplated legal challenge and regulatory processes that can change quickly, and no outcome discussed is guaranteed. Information is accurate as of July 21, 2026.