Конгресс США рассматривает законопроект о запрете владения банками членами семьи президента

For most of my career, I worked in banking, including many years at institutions regulated by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC). Over time, I came to deeply appreciate the purpose of federal oversight. The OCC’s regular safety and soundness examinations are not just regulatory check-ins; they are foundational to the stability of our financial system. Alongside the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), these examinations reassure Americans that their deposits are protected and that our banking system is being monitored with rigor and independence. This trust is one of the reasons the United States has long been a global financial leader. The process of forming a new bank is intentionally demanding. Applicants must demonstrate strong governance, adequate capital and a commitment to protecting depositors. These high standards have served our country well, ensuring that only institutions capable of meeting the public’s expectations for safety and accountability are granted charters. Recently, however, a development has raised important questions about how we preserve that trust. World Liberty Financial (WLF), a cryptocurrency venture backed by members of the Trump and Witkoff families, has applied for a federal banking charter through a new entity called World Liberty Trust Company. The OCC has granted preliminary conditional approval — meaning the company must still meet several requirements before operating — but the decision has generated controversy. The concern is not about cryptocurrency itself, nor about whether stablecoins should be integrated into the banking system. Regulators are actively debating that question, and it deserves careful, nonpolitical consideration. The issue here is the appearance of a conflict of interest. The OCC is currently led by an appointee of President Donald Trump, and WLF is financially tied to the president’s family. Even if every rule is followed, the optics alone risk undermining public confidence in the impartiality of our regulatory system. Banking regulation must be free from undue influence — real or perceived. When the public begins to question whether powerful individuals can shape the rules to benefit their own financial ventures, trust erodes. And trust, once shaken, is difficult to rebuild. That is why Congress is considering legislation that would prohibit presidents, vice presidents, their immediate families and senior government officials from owning or controlling a bank. This is not a partisan proposal. It is a safeguard — one designed to protect the integrity of our financial system and reinforce the principle that public service should never be used for private gain. In my view, this legislation is a sensible step. Our banking system depends on trust, and trust depends on impartial oversight. Preserving that should be something all Americans, regardless of political affiliation, can agree on.