The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) has filed a federal lawsuit against the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), challenging its approach to granting national trust bank charters to companies primarily engaged in digital asset activities. The legal action, filed on October 2 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, brings renewed scrutiny to the OCC’s regulation of crypto companies within the US banking system.
ICBA disputes OCC interpretation of trust charters
At the heart of the conflict is the OCC’s February 2026 rule update, which replaced the phrase “fiduciary activities” in its national trust bank chartering regulations with “the operations of a trust company and activities related thereto.” This revision took effect on April 1 and, according to the OCC, was meant to clarify existing authority instead of altering the agency’s reach.
The ICBA—a prominent trade group representing over 5,000 community banks in the United States—claims the OCC has exceeded its mandate by allowing digital asset firms to obtain national trust charters without being held to the same standards as traditional federally insured banks. The organization’s complaint specifically names OCC Comptroller Jonathan Gould and aims to overturn both the March 2026 chartering rule and OCC’s Interpretive Letter 1176, first issued in January 2021.
Interpretive Letter 1176 concluded that national trust banks could carry out activities permitted to state trust companies, even if those activities are not fiduciary in nature. The ICBA argues this interpretation allowed crypto firms to gain access to the banking system through national trust charters, a pathway Congress did not intend for digital asset businesses.
ICBA President and CEO Rebeca Romero Rainey stated that congressional intent did not support the use of national trust charters as “a side door into the banking system for crypto firms” seeking federal bank legitimacy without equivalent oversight.
Approval process for crypto trust banks under review
The lawsuit targets the OCC’s broader framework for approving national trust banks. According to the ICBA, 21 such banks have received approval or conditional approval, including 13 institutions with direct links to the cryptocurrency sector. The complaint singles out the OCC’s approval process for Protego, a digital asset trust entity, and seeks to prevent the agency from approving similar charters under the contested framework.
National trust banks can operate without federal deposit insurance and generally do not offer traditional deposit or loan services. The ICBA argues that this allows crypto firms holding these charters to bypass several regulatory requirements that apply to insured depository institutions, including capital levels, liquidity standards, the Community Reinvestment Act, and consolidated supervision rules.
By contrast, the OCC maintains that national trust banks have longstanding authority to engage in non-fiduciary activities as part of their trust company operations, citing custody and safekeeping as valid examples.
The legal battle is expected to focus on how broadly Section 27(a) of the National Bank Act permits the OCC to charter trust banks and which activities can be considered as closely related to trust company operations.
| Item | OCC Position | ICBA Position |
|---|---|---|
| Chartering national trust banks for crypto companies | Permitted under revised rules; includes non-fiduciary activities | Exceeds congressional authority, creates regulatory gaps |
| Key regulatory requirements | Not all traditional banking standards required | Should face similar obligations as insured banks |
| No. of trust bank approvals (crypto-linked) | 21 approvals, 13 tied to crypto | Challenges the legitimacy of these charters |
Major digital asset firms and regulatory expansion
The regulatory clash coincides with increasing interest from major digital asset firms in obtaining national trust charters. OCC records show that Coinbase National Trust Company, a subsidiary of leading US cryptocurrency exchange Coinbase, was granted a trust charter decision in April 2026. Other firms, such as those connected to stablecoin issuer Circle, are similarly pursuing trust structures to offer custody, settlement, and digital-asset payment services under a federal regulatory umbrella.
National trust charters do not require institutions to accept deposits or make traditional loans. However, ICBA asserts that the federal charter gives crypto firms a market advantage and can create confusion for customers who may associate such institutions with the protections of insured banks.
The OCC declined to comment on the pending litigation.
Mini dictionary: OCC (Office of the Comptroller of the Currency), an independent bureau of the U.S. Department of the Treasury, is responsible for chartering, regulating, and supervising national banks and federal savings associations.
World Liberty Trust and SEC add complexity to debate
The OCC’s August approval of a conditional charter for World Liberty Trust Company, associated with World Liberty Financial and the Trump family’s crypto project, has brought further attention to the issue. The institution is designed to support stablecoin and digital-asset services rather than traditional banking activities.
According to the ICBA, this trend illustrates how the growing number of national trust charters is fueling the infrastructure around stablecoins, digital asset custody, and payments. The organization contends that the situation highlights a broader legal question about federal authority to authorize digital asset firms as national trust banks.
Meanwhile, the regulatory landscape continues to shift as the Securities and Exchange Commission recently proposed new custody rules for crypto by registered investment advisers and regulated funds. The SEC’s October 1 proposal would allow for crypto self-custody in some cases and let state-chartered trust companies act as custodians, provided they meet certain standards.
The SEC argues that the proposed rules will create a clearer regulatory environment for custody of crypto assets and better align requirements with the expansion of the asset class.
These parallel developments reflect ongoing questions about how cryptocurrency will be integrated into US financial regulation, with the SEC and OCC focusing on different aspects of oversight.
Implications for industry and future charter applicants
The outcome of the ICBA lawsuit could determine how much flexibility the OCC retains in granting national trust charters to digital asset businesses whose activities extend beyond traditional fiduciary services. It will also test the agency’s 2021 interpretation and the 2026 final rule in federal court.
Should the court side with the ICBA, crypto exchanges, stablecoin projects, custodians, and other digital asset firms may face new challenges in seeking federal trust bank status. For the broader digital asset industry, the case marks an important test of how crypto business models fit within established banking regulations.
For community banks, the lawsuit raises the issue of whether firms operating under specialized charters should be held to the same regulatory standards and consumer safeguards as traditional insured entities.
