U.S. banking regulation underwent a material reset in 2025. With new leadership at the Federal Reserve, the OCC, and the FDIC, the second Trump Administration moved quickly to redirect regulatory policy toward an embrace of digital assets, a reimagination of the regulatory perimeter, capital reform, and a recalibrated supervisory approach focused on financial risk. The result was not incremental change, but a decisive shift in the tone and trajectory of federal policy. Below, we summarize key themes and developments from 2025 and look ahead to how the 2026 bank regulatory agenda is likely to shape up.
2025 in Review: Key Themes
Digital Assets Move Into the Regulatory Mainstream
In perhaps the most visible inflection point of 2025, the bank regulatory posture toward digital assets changed radically. One of President Trump’s first actions in his second term was to issue an executive order declaring that federal policy would favor the “responsible growth” of digital assets and blockchain technology. Banking regulators quickly followed suit, rescinding or reversing most of the Biden-era guidance that had effectively discouraged banks from crypto-related activity.
The biggest development came in July, when Congress enacted the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (the “GENIUS Act”). The statute created, for the first time, a federal framework under which both insured depository institutions and certain nonbanks may issue stablecoins.
Regulators reinforced this shift through interpretive action. In November and December, the OCC issued letters confirming that national banks may (i) hold digital assets as principal to facilitate network operations and testing and (ii) engage in riskless principal crypto-asset transactions. The OCC also released previously confidential responses to supervisory non-objection requests, shedding light on how banks had navigated the now-rescinded approval regime.
The Continued Rise of Novel Charters and Return of the De Novo Bank Application
Another consequential shift in 2025 was the return of the de novo bank charter as a viable strategic option. After more than a decade in which new charters were rare and regulators appeared skeptical of novel entrants, federal banking agencies are again signaling openness to new banks—particularly those with focused or technology-driven business models.
In 2025, the OCC received 14 de novo charter applications for limited purpose national trust banks, nearly matching the total from the prior four years combined. Many of these applications involve non-traditional, including fintech and digital-asset, firms seeking to move core activities—payments, custody, lending, or stablecoin issuance—inside a regulated banking perimeter rather than relying on third-party bank partnerships.
The trend was not limited to fintech interest in national trust banks, however. Several large payments and technology companies are revisiting or pursuing industrial loan company (“ILC”) charters, attracted by the ability to take FDIC-insured deposits while avoiding Bank Holding Company Act regulation at the parent level. The most prominent example is PayPal’s December 2025 application to form a Utah-chartered ILC, a move that would allow the company to bring key banking functions in-house and expand small-business lending while still remaining outside the traditional bank holding company framework.
Regulators appear increasingly comfortable with these models, emphasizing strong governance, ring-fencing, and activity-based supervision rather than blanket resistance to new entrants. For legal and compliance teams, this resurgence matters: charter choice is once again a live strategic question, and differences among national bank, trust bank, and ILC structures carry significant implications for supervision, capital, affiliate transactions, and long-term scalability. That said, 2025 also saw the beginnings of a backlash. The ILC has long been a controversial charter, with many banks taking a view that it improperly blurs the line between banking and commerce. Likewise, the recent flood of national trust bank applications attracted pushback almost immediately, with several banks and trade groups urging the OCC to deny bids from digital asset companies.
If 2025 marked the reopening of the chartering door, 2026 is likely to test how wide regulators are prepared to leave it open—and how the traditional banking sector will respond.
Capital Reform: Basel III Endgame, Revisited
On capital, agency leadership made clear that the 2023 Basel III “endgame” proposal would not be finalized in its original form. Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman emphasized the need for greater tailoring and a reassessment of the broader capital framework.
Although the path forward on capital remains to be seen, an initial step occurred in November, with finalization of an interagency rule revising the enhanced supplementary leverage ratio for U.S. GSIBs. Regulators have been explicit that this is only the opening move, with additional capital changes expected in 2026.
Bank Supervision: From Process to Material Risk
Bank supervision also saw a clear pivot over the course of the year. Regulators repeatedly emphasized a desire to refocus examinations on material financial risk rather than risk-management and governance formalities—and to inject more transparency into supervisory outcomes.
Reputational risk became an early casualty of these changes. Following a presidential executive order targeting “politicized or unlawful debanking,” the FDIC and OCC proposed joint rules to eliminate reputational risk as a standalone basis for supervisory criticism, to define “unsafe or unsound practices” more precisely under Section 8 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and to revise the framework governing MRAs and other supervisory findings. The FDIC also proposed creating an independent Office of Supervisory Appeals.
The Federal Reserve made parallel moves, but stopped short of joining the OCC/FDIC proposals. In November, it revised the Large Financial Institution (“LFI”) rating framework so that firms with limited supervisory deficiencies could still be deemed “well managed.” In December, it released for the first time staff supervision manuals for GSIBs that had long been treated as confidential.
Looking Ahead to 2026: What to Watch
If 2025 was about resetting direction, 2026 will be about implementation—and, in some areas, even further change.
Implementing the Stablecoin Framework
The GENIUS Act requires the federal banking agencies to adopt a comprehensive regulatory framework for stablecoin issuers by July 18, 2026. Those forthcoming rules will set the baseline requirements for capital, liquidity, reserve assets, and governance—and, in practical terms, will determine which institutions can issue stablecoins on an economically viable basis.
In December 2025, the FDIC took the first concrete step toward implementation by issuing a notice of proposed rulemaking addressing how FDIC-supervised institutions would be evaluated if they seek to issue stablecoins. The proposal did not attempt to complete the full GENIUS Act framework. Instead, it previewed the FDIC’s supervisory approach and signaled how the agency is likely to think about safety and soundness, reserve backing, and risk management in this space.
The remaining interagency rules are expected to follow in the first half of 2026. Together, those rules will shape the competitive landscape for stablecoin issuance and influence whether banks view stablecoins as a core business opportunity or a niche offering.
Clarifying Permissible Crypto Activities
Beyond stablecoins, regulators are signaling further guidance on the permissibility of bank crypto activities more broadly. The Federal Reserve has indicated that it plans to clarify allowed activities and respond to new use cases, while the FDIC is evaluating recommendations from the President’s Working Group on Digital Asset Markets, including the treatment of tokenized deposits.
Supervisory Reform Continues
Supervisory transparency is likely to be a dominant theme in 2026. Following the FDIC-OCC joint proposal, the Federal Reserve is expected to consider similar rulemaking to constrain enforcement actions and supervisory findings to demonstrable safety-and-soundness concerns. Further, the agencies are also reviewing the CAMELS rating system, with an eye toward aligning it more closely with the LFI framework and refocusing component ratings—particularly management—on financial risk rather than governance formality.
Resolution Planning and Failed Bank Sales
At the FDIC, newly-confirmed Chairman Hill has emphasized lessons learned from the 2023 banking turmoil. Under his guidance, the agency is developing proposed amendments to the insured depository institution resolution planning rule and exploring changes to the failed-bank marketing process, including broader participation by nonbank bidders. A pre-qualification program for such bidders is expected to be piloted in early 2026.
Debanking and BSA/AML Reform
Debanking emerged as one of the most politically and regulatorily charged issues of 2025—and it is unlikely to recede in 2026. In December, congressional committees released reports concluding that prudential regulators’ Biden-era policies had contributed to the unlawful debanking of digital asset and other lawful businesses. Those reports put direct pressure on the banking agencies to revisit supervisory practices tied to reputational risk and BSA/AML compliance.
Shortly thereafter, the OCC released its own preliminary supervisory report on debanking, summarizing information gathered from a group of large banks regarding account terminations and related policies. While the OCC report stopped short of taking definitive action, the agency stated that all reviewed institutions had engaged in debanking activity and emphasized that it would pursue further supervisory action and potential referrals where conduct was found to be unlawful.
Together, the congressional findings and the OCC’s report signal that debanking will remain a live supervisory issue in the coming months. Importantly, regulators have begun to frame debanking concerns alongside broader BSA/AML reform, suggesting that future changes to AML expectations and examination practices may be aimed not only at reducing compliance burden, but also at curbing overly defensive account-closure practices driven by regulatory risk aversion.
Other Issues on the Horizon
Several additional developments merit attention in 2026:
- Federal Reserve Chair Succession. Chair Powell’s term ends in May 2026, with a nomination expected early in the year.
- The Rise of Private Credit. Regulators are closely watching bank exposure to private credit markets and the competitive balance between banks and nonbanks.
- “Skinny” Master Accounts. The Federal Reserve continues to explore limited-access master account models for smaller banks and specialized institutions. On December 19, the Fed issued a request for information (“RFI”) seeking public input on so-called “skinny” master accounts, which would provide access to Federal Reserve payment rails while limiting or excluding features such as discount window access or daylight overdrafts. The RFI signals that the Fed is actively considering structural changes to account access, which has long been the holy grail for fintech and payments companies.
- ESG and DEI Retrenchment. Federal banking agencies have withdrawn climate-risk guidance and exited international green-finance initiatives, signaling a sustained retreat from ESG-driven supervision.
Summary
There can be no question that 2025 marked a decisive turn in U.S. banking regulation. Stablecoin legislation, capital reform, supervisory recalibration, and renewed openness to novel charters have reshaped the landscape. In 2026, the focus will shift from direction-setting to execution, testing how far, and how fast, this new regulatory posture can be translated into durable rules and supervisory practice. We will be monitoring these areas closely and will provide additional updates throughout the year.
