 President Trump’s recent executive actions on workplace religious freedom and “debanking” are bold initiatives that reinforce our most important First Amendment freedoms. Religion in the Federal Workspace The U.S. Office of Personnel Management recently issued a detailed memorandum that builds on Trump’s earlier executive orders such as “Eradicating Anti‑Christian Bias” and establishing the Religious Liberty Commission. The OPM memo affirms that federal employees are entitled to private expressions of faith equal to secular forms of expression, such as wearing religious jewelry or displaying items of faith on their desks. Expression, whether secular or religious, is still subject to reasonable, viewpoint-neutral restrictions of time, place, and manner. This seems to us in keeping with the Supreme Court’s logic in the 2022 case of the “praying coach,” Kennedy v. Bremerton School District. More than anything, the OPM memo reflects the essence of the First Amendment, an essentially American commitment to protect people of all faiths and creeds. Debanking As we’ve reported, debanking was an informal use of regulatory and commercial power to silence politically disfavored groups defined as posing a “reputational risk” that justifies the closure of their accounts. A blatant example of government using regulatory action to silence disfavored speech was in full view in the Supreme Court’s 2024 unanimous rebuke of New York state regulator Maria T. Vullo. She had twisted the arms of insurance companies and banks to blacklist the nation’s most prominent Second Amendment advocacy group. We also covered the plight of the National Committee for Religious Freedom after it was summarily debanked by Chase Bank. Somehow, this faith-based institution dedicated to freedom, and founded by Sam Brownback, former governor, senator, and U.S. ambassador, was defined under the Orwellian category as being run by a reputationally dangerous “politically exposed” person. President Trump’s executive order now stakes a firm position – no American should be denied banking services for constitutionally protected speech. His order directs regulators to stop using “reputational risk” as a justification for account closures, to investigate possible cases of unlawful debanking, and to reinstate previously affected customers. Removing reputational risk from financial oversight is a concrete step toward clarity and fairness. The Cato Institute further commends the executive order for its focus on investigation over interventions, which Nicholas Anthony judges reflect the prudence of a sound policy, allowing policy to be shaped by evidence. These executive actions are strong and necessary pushbacks against cancel culture overreach through regulation. But both have ambiguities that need to be clarified, and potential pitfalls that must be addressed. Supporting Faith Freedom, Not Proselytizing The Free Speech Center at Middle Tennessee University reports it is unclear the extent to which OPM’s standards override Clinton‑era guidelines. Douglas Laycock, a legal scholar at the University of Texas Law School, told Bloomberg News that the “Clinton document was much more sensitive” to power dynamics between supervisors and employees. “The failure to caution supervisors about how their comments,” he said, “can easily be misunderstood (or correctly understood) as demanding compliance.” Banks in a Bind The debanking order, as welcome as it is, adds yet another regulatory wrinkle to the heavy-handed requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act. Financial institutions are required by current law to send secret “suspicious activity reports” to U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network whenever a customer’s activities fall outside of narrow behavioral parameters. Although most of these reports turn out to have nothing to do with money laundering or terrorism, banks can still be required to debank a customer who inadvertently trips a low threshold of suspicion. Thus, the cross purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act and the new executive order are likely to put financial institutions in an impossible “damned if you do, damned if you don’t” position. We also have to ask if we want to deny banks any ability to legitimately exercise their right of freedom of association in rejecting accounts for groups that offer genuine reputational (and other) risks. Think of the North American Man-Boy Love Association, or the National Socialist White People’s Party. More prosaically, should a bank be liable for cancelling the account of a political group that has a history of overdrafts and financial irresponsibility? Congress needs to follow up to fill in these gaps. Far from weakening the administration’s actions, legislation would bolster these protections in the face of inevitable legal challenges. Credit goes to President Trump for getting the ball rolling on these two areas of discrimination. Lawmakers now have a duty to translate these executive priorities into clear, balanced laws that both avoid unintended consequences while cementing enduring, equitable protections for all Americans. Comments are closed.
|
Archives
January 2026
Categories
All
|
RSS Feed