Crypto Industry Unites Against Senator Warren’s Banking Charter Challenge
Leading crypto trade groups have joined forces to support U.S. banking regulators in their defense against Senator Elizabeth Warren’s claims that national trust charters for companies like Coinbase, Ripple, and Circle are illegal under federal banking law. According to reporting from Decrypt, the Digital Chamber sent a letter to Comptroller Jonathan Gould urging the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency to “remain steadfast” in its decision to grant national trust bank charters to crypto-focused firms, including Coinbase National Trust Company, Ripple National Trust Bank, and Circle entities.
Warren, the ranking Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, accused the OCC of “illegally” approving at least nine crypto trust charters in a manner that, according to her, exceeds the National Bank Act and threatens the safety of the U.S. banking system. In a May 18 letter to Gould, Warren argued that since December 2025, the OCC has approved “at least nine national trust charters for crypto companies seeking to conduct activities that exceed the narrow range of operations permitted by law,” naming Ripple, Circle, Paxos, Fidelity Digital Asset Services, BitGo, Crypto.com’s Foris DAX, Stripe’s Bridge, Protego, and Coinbase as beneficiaries.
The GENIUS Act and Congressional Authorization
The Digital Chamber’s response heavily relies on the Guiding and Establishing National Innovations for U.S. Stablecoins Act—the GENIUS Act—which President Trump signed into law in July 2025 as the first federal framework for U.S. dollar-backed payment stablecoins. The industry group argues that
“Congress effectively authorized the OCC to expand bank charters to stablecoin businesses through the GENIUS Act,”
and that national trust charters for entities like Circle are therefore not illegal but rather direct implementation of congressional intent.
Under the GENIUS Act, a new category of “permitted payment stablecoin issuer” was created and placed under primary OCC supervision, granting the agency authority to license, regulate, and examine both bank and non-bank stablecoin issuers. The OCC followed up in February 2026 with a proposed rule implementing the GENIUS Act, detailing how national trust charters and other licenses apply to stablecoin activities.
The Core Dispute: Bank Privileges Without Bank Accountability
A critical point in the industry’s defense is that national trust charters do not permit these companies to accept FDIC-insured deposits or conduct traditional commercial lending. The Digital Chamber emphasizes in its letter that chartered firms “do not accept FDIC-insured deposits and therefore are not engaged in traditional banking operations,” framing them as custodians and payment stablecoin issuers operating under a bespoke federal regime.
Warren’s campaign, however, contends this is merely semantics. Her letter argues that the OCC is using limited-purpose trust charters and GENIUS Act authority to give crypto firms “bank-level privileges without bank-level accountability,” including activities such as staking, lending, trading, and stablecoin issuance that exceed what the National Bank Act permits for national trust banks. She warns that this “regulatory shortcut” could create systemic risk if a stablecoin issuer or major crypto custodian fails, lacking the capital, liquidity, and resolution tools appropriate for full-service banks.
What’s Really at Stake
The true stakes extend beyond the legality of individual charters: the question is who will define the perimeter of the U.S. banking system in the stablecoin era. If Warren succeeds in pressuring the OCC to retreat, Coinbase, Ripple, Circle, and their peers may see their most promising federal charter avenue shrink or be revoked, pushing them back toward state-level regimes. Conversely, if the OCC and its allies remain steadfast, the GENIUS Act will do more than benefit stablecoins—it will quietly create a new class of non-deposit-taking, OCC-supervised crypto institutions that look, move, and lobby like banks, even as they attempt to demonstrate they represent something fundamentally different.
