U.S. Bankers Ask OCC to Slow National Trust Charters for Crypto Firms

The American Bankers Association has formally urged the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to slow or pause its review of national trust charter applications from crypto and stablecoin-focused firms until broader federal legislation and rulemaking clarify supervisory boundaries. In a detailed letter the ABA flagged open prudential, operational and consumer‑protection questions tied to limited‑purpose trust entities that primarily custody digital assets but do not take retail deposits. Key concerns include how custodial segregation for tokens would be structured, whether affiliated non‑bank activities could create conflicts of interest, and what capital, liquidity and recovery planning should apply to institutions operating under conditional approvals. The ABA also warned that permitting national trust charters to proceed without clearer statutory lines risks creating a regulatory route that could be used to avoid SEC or CFTC oversight where securities or derivatives law otherwise applies, heightening the prospect of regulatory arbitrage and later interagency disputes. The plea comes amid an industry-wide push toward federal charters: Nomura’s Laser Digital has filed for a national trust charter as part of a wave of crypto and fintech firms seeking an on‑shore, single federal supervisor to streamline cross‑state operations and institutional service offerings. The OCC’s recent December 2025 decision to issue conditional approvals to five crypto custody operators is a focal point for the ABA’s request; the trade group argues those conditional letters should not be treated as the end of rule‑setting and wants clearer disclosure about the standards applied when approvals are granted. The ABA asked the OCC to require explicit capital, governance, compliance and operational milestones in any conditional approvals, to tighten limits on use of the term “bank” by limited‑purpose trust entities to avoid consumer confusion, and to coordinate with other regulators so firms cannot use charters to sidestep securities or commodities jurisdiction. The appeal arrives as congressional deliberations over market structure and stablecoin frameworks remain unsettled — a dynamic underscored by recent political friction after a major industry backer withdrew support for a market‑structure draft and by scheduled committee actions and White House‑led technical convenings aimed at narrowing disputes. For applicants and incumbents alike, the ABA’s proposal elevates questions of sequencing: whether federal charters should be frozen until statutory and rulemaking gaps are closed, or whether staged OCC approvals can coexist with parallel legislative work. If the OCC heeds the ABA, firms seeking charters will face longer timelines but benefit from clearer cross‑agency expectations; if the OCC declines, expect intensified litigation, political pushback and continued debate about how charters intersect with SEC and CFTC authorities. Ultimately the dispute reflects a broader regulatory crossroads: policymakers must choose between accelerating on‑ramps for custody within the banking perimeter or pausing to build a more harmonized statutory and supervisory architecture.