The lawsuit, filed October 2 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, puts the growing role of crypto firms within the U.S. banking system under renewed legal scrutiny. ICBA argues that the OCC has allowed companies engaged primarily in digital-asset activities to obtain federal bank charters without being subject to several requirements that apply to insured traditional banks.
At the center of the dispute is the OCC’s interpretation of the National Bank Act and its decision to permit national trust banks to conduct certain non-fiduciary activities. The agency’s February 2026 final rule, which took effect April 1, replaced references to “fiduciary activities” in its chartering regulations with “the operations of a trust company and activities related thereto.” The OCC said the change was intended to clarify existing authority rather than expand or restrict it.
ICBA Challenges OCC Crypto Bank Charters
ICBA’s complaint names the OCC and Comptroller Jonathan Gould and seeks to invalidate the March 2026 chartering rule and OCC Interpretive Letter 1176, issued in January 2021.
The 2021 interpretation addressed the OCC’s authority to charter national banks operating within the scope of Section 27(a) of the National Bank Act. It concluded that national trust banks could conduct activities permitted for state trust companies, including certain activities that are not fiduciary in nature.
The Independent Community Bankers of America sued the OCC, challenging its authority to grant national trust charters to crypto firms. Source: @coinbureau via X
ICBA argues that this interpretation opened the door for crypto companies to obtain national trust charters despite not operating like conventional trust institutions. The banking group contends that Congress did not intend national trust charters to provide a pathway into the banking system for companies whose primary businesses involve digital assets.
“The OCC’s decision to allow companies to obtain national trust bank charters to conduct substantial non-fiduciary activities exceeds the authority Congress granted the agency,” ICBA President and CEO Rebeca Romero Rainey said.
Rainey added that Congress “did not create the national trust charter as a side door into the banking system for crypto firms” seeking the credibility associated with a federal bank charter without the regulatory requirements applied to insured depository institutions.
21 Trust Bank Approvals Face Scrutiny
The lawsuit challenges the broader framework used by the OCC to approve national trust banks, including 21 approvals identified in the complaint. ICBA says 13 of those institutions have ties to the cryptocurrency industry.
The complaint specifically challenges the OCC’s treatment of Protego and seeks to prevent the agency from continuing to rely on the disputed rule and 2021 interpretation when approving similar charters.
The complaint says 21 trust banks have received approval or conditional approval, including 13 crypto firms, and seeks to revoke Protego’s charter. Source: Ariel Givner via X
ICBA says national trust banks can operate without federal deposit insurance and generally do not accept traditional deposits or make conventional loans. As a result, the group argues that chartered crypto firms can avoid some requirements that apply to insured banks, including certain capital, liquidity, Community Reinvestment Act, and consolidated supervisory standards.
The OCC takes a different position. Its 2026 rule states that national trust banks have long been permitted to engage in certain non-fiduciary activities related to trust-company operations. The agency also pointed to custody and safekeeping as examples of non-fiduciary activities that can fall within the business of banking.
The legal dispute will therefore turn in part on how broadly Section 27(a) permits the OCC to charter national trust banks and what activities qualify as being related to the operations of a trust company.
Coinbase and Circle Among Crypto Firms in Focus
The challenge comes as several major digital-asset companies seek closer integration with the U.S. financial system.
The OCC’s licensing records show that Coinbase National Trust Company received a charter decision in April 2026. Other digital-asset firms have also pursued national trust structures, reflecting growing demand for federally chartered entities that can provide custody, settlement, and related financial services.
For crypto companies, a national trust charter can provide a federal regulatory framework for activities such as digital-asset custody without turning the institution into a conventional deposit-taking bank. That distinction is important because national trust banks do not necessarily provide the same products or perform the same functions as full-service commercial banks.
ICBA nevertheless argues that the federal charter can give crypto companies a competitive advantage and create confusion for consumers who may associate the term “bank” with protections available to insured depository institutions.
The OCC declined to comment on the litigation.
World Liberty Charter Adds to Regulatory Debate
The dispute also follows the OCC’s conditional approval of a national trust bank charter for World Liberty Trust Company, an entity linked to World Liberty Financial and the Trump family’s crypto venture.
The OCC granted conditional preliminary approval in August for the proposed national trust bank. The institution is intended to support World Liberty Financial’s stablecoin-related operations and digital-asset services, rather than traditional deposit-taking and lending.
The approval illustrates how national trust charters have become part of the expanding infrastructure around stablecoins, crypto custody, and digital-asset payments.
For ICBA, however, the issue is broader than individual companies. The organization is challenging the legal framework that it says has enabled the OCC to authorize crypto businesses as national trust banks.
SEC Crypto Custody Proposal Adds Another Layer
The lawsuit arrives as other U.S. financial regulators take steps toward clearer rules for institutional crypto activity.
On October 1, the Securities and Exchange Commission proposed new rules covering crypto custody by registered investment advisers and regulated funds. The proposal would allow self-custody of crypto assets under certain conditions and permit state-chartered trust companies to serve as custodians, subject to specified requirements.
Earlier, the SEC proposed updated custody rules allowing crypto self-custody under certain conditions and permitting state trust companies to serve as custodians. Source: Kyle Chassé via X
SEC Chairman Paul Atkins said the proposal would provide a “clear regulatory framework for the custody of crypto assets,” arguing that existing rules had not kept pace with the growth of the asset class.
The SEC proposal and the ICBA lawsuit approach crypto from different regulatory perspectives. The SEC is seeking to establish clearer custody rules for investment advisers and funds, while the ICBA case challenges how federal banking authorities can use national trust charters for digital-asset companies.
Together, the developments underscore the different regulatory questions emerging as cryptocurrency becomes more closely connected to the traditional financial system.
What Comes Next for Crypto Bank Charters
The ICBA lawsuit could determine how much flexibility the OCC has when chartering national trust banks whose businesses extend beyond traditional fiduciary services.
The case also puts the agency’s 2021 Interpretive Letter 1176 and its 2026 chartering rule under judicial scrutiny. The OCC maintains that its rule merely aligns its regulations with authority already provided by federal law, while ICBA argues that the agency has gone beyond the authority Congress granted it.
The outcome could affect future charter applications from cryptocurrency exchanges, stablecoin issuers, custodians, and other digital-asset companies seeking national trust bank status.
For the broader crypto industry, the case represents another test of how digital-asset businesses will fit within the U.S. banking framework. For community banks, it is a challenge over whether firms operating under specialized trust charters should face the same regulatory obligations and safeguards as traditional insured institutions.
Be the first to comment