Trump's executive order gives regulators 90 days to identify barriers and 180 days to recommend changes for crypto firm access to Fed master accounts. Warren opposes. ABA demands equal rules.
U.S. President Donald Trump signed an executive order Tuesday, May 19, directing federal regulators to evaluate and remove policies that block crypto firms and fintechs from accessing Federal Reserve payment rails. The order gives agencies 90 days to identify barriers and 180 days to recommend rule changes. If implemented, crypto companies could gain direct access to Fed master accounts – the gateways to the Fed's wholesale payment system – a privilege currently limited to deposit-taking banks.
The move reactivates a Washington debate that split the Biden administration: whether crypto firms should get the plumbing of banking without the full set of prudential rules. The order also cites debanking complaints from crypto executives, who argued that regulatory pressure during the previous administration caused banks to close accounts or refuse services to digital-asset firms.
The executive order covers all federal banking agencies, including the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). Each agency must submit a report within 90 days identifying policies that "hinder financial innovation" related to digital assets and fintech. Within 180 days, they must recommend specific rule changes that would expand access to Federal Reserve master accounts and payment services.
A master account allows a financial institution to hold reserves at the Fed and settle transactions in real time. Only banks and certain thrifts qualify today. Fintechs, payment companies, and state-chartered crypto custodians have long been locked out, forcing them to partner with banks to access the system – a workaround that adds cost and counterparty risk.
The order's language ties directly to the debanking complaints that accumulated during the Biden administration. The executive order cites the need to "ensure that Americans and American companies are not systematically excluded from traditional financial services." This framing gives regulators a preexisting narrative to justify changes. If the review began in earnest, the 90-day mark would fall in August, with final recommendations due in November. A change in the political calendar – 2026 midterms – could accelerate or stall the process depending on congressional signals.
Separately, Senator Elizabeth Warren has stepped up criticism of the OCC's decisions to approve crypto firms for national trust licenses. Her letter to the OCC singled out Ripple and Circle among nine companies that reportedly received such approvals to enter the custody market for stablecoin reserves.
"Allowing national trust companies to act like full-service national banks, while evading the suite of restrictions, safeguards, and obligations that apply to full-service national banks, would pose clear risks to consumers."
Warren directly linked the approvals to the Trump administration's ties to crypto ventures. She demanded that the OCC submit all application documents and supporting materials, including any communications with the White House. Her stance signals that any rule changes for master accounts will face sustained opposition in the Senate Banking Committee.
The nine firms receiving trust licenses are not banks, they can legally hold customer assets and manage stablecoin reserves. The OCC has historically treated national trust charters as a lighter-touch alternative to a full banking license. Warren argues the line is blurring.
"These companies are effectively crypto banks that want to evade the fundamental safeguards and obligations that come with being a bank."
If the Fed master account review proceeds, a key question is whether these trust companies would qualify. The executive order does not define which types of fintechs or crypto firms should receive access. The agencies will have to decide whether to limit master accounts to entities with full FDIC insurance and Basel capital requirements, or to allow a broader set.
The American Bankers Association reacted by calling for equal treatment before any new access is granted.
The ABA's position is straightforward: if crypto firms get master accounts, they should be subject to the same capital, liquidity, and supervision rules that apply to banks. That would effectively require crypto firms to become full banks – a costly and time-consuming process that most have avoided.
This dynamic creates a negotiation. The Treasury and the Fed could propose a limited-purpose master account that grants payment access without deposit insurance, similar to the Fed's proposed master account for nonbanks under the Biden-era framework that never advanced. Crypto firms would likely accept such a compromise. The ABA and Senator Warren would oppose it as a regulatory gap.
If the administration pushes through a narrow rule change that grants master accounts to OCC-licensed trust companies, crypto firms like Ripple and Circle would gain direct settlement access within a year. The effect would be lower transaction costs and faster cross-border flows for stablecoins. Bitcoin and Ethereum could benefit as infrastructure providers, the direct beneficiary would be firms that already hold trust charters.
The 180-day deadline falls in November, which is also a midterm campaign window. Senator Warren and allies could block any changes through appropriations riders or oversight hearings. The OCC trust approvals would remain in place, master account access would stall. Crypto firms would continue using bank partners, and the debanking complaints would persist. This outcome is the most likely because the regulatory process alone takes longer than six months, and the political backlash would slow any final rule.
A middle path would see the Fed propose a new class of limited-purpose master accounts for nonbank fintechs and crypto firms, with explicit conditions: no deposit insurance, a cap on transaction volume, and ongoing supervision by the OCC or state regulators. This would give crypto firms the payment access they want without full bank status. The risk: these conditions could impose operational burdens that make the access less valuable than expected. The CLARITY Act could create a legislative backstop for such a structure, though its Senate vote remains uncertain. For more context on that bill, see CLARITY Act Consolidation Sets Up Summer Senate Vote on Crypto.
For anyone holding a position in crypto assets or related equities, the next concrete catalyst is the agencies' 90-day report due in August. At that point, investors will learn which policies the regulators flag as barriers. A broad list that includes master account rules would signal that the administration intends to push for access. A narrow list focused on minor KYC or licensing issues would signal that the Fed is resisting change.
Between now and then, the OCC's trust license approvals will remain a flashpoint. Any new evidence of White House involvement in those approvals – as Warren has demanded – could trigger a congressional investigation and delay the master account review. The safest read: treat the executive order as a directional signal, not a guarantee, and watch for the first concrete deliverable in three months.
For broader context on how crypto regulatory shifts affect market dynamics, see our crypto market analysis page.
Prepared with AlphaScala research tooling and grounded in primary market data: live prices, fundamentals, SEC filings, hedge-fund holdings, and insider activity. Each story is checked against AlphaScala publishing rules before release. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.