(The Epoch Times)—The Federal Reserve announced on June 23 that it will no longer factor “reputation risk” into its bank examinations, a move aligned with efforts by Republican lawmakers and the Trump administration to combat what they describe as politically motivated financial discrimination—particularly debanking.
The central bank said in a statement it has begun reviewing and revising its supervisory materials to remove references to reputation risk, replacing them where appropriate with more specific discussions of financial risk.
In its June 23 announcement, the Fed said it has started the process of reviewing references to reputation risk in its supervisory materials and replacing them, when appropriate, with more specific discussions of financial risk.
“This change does not alter the Board’s expectation that banks maintain strong risk management to ensure safety and soundness and compliance with law and regulation,” the Fed said in a statement.
The decision marks a significant shift in how regulators assess banks, particularly as scrutiny intensifies over claims that some institutions have denied services to lawful businesses—such as cryptocurrency firms, religious organizations, or political groups—based on subjective concerns about reputational harm.
Although banks generally have wide discretion over account relationships, critics argue that invoking reputational risk can mask discriminatory decisions. These concerns have fueled growing bipartisan calls to ensure fair access to financial services.
“This is how de-banking works,” Jeremy Tedesco, senior counsel at Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), told The Epoch Times in a 2023 interview. “The bank closes the accounts, doesn’t give a clear reason, and cites some kind of risk toleration policy for the denial, under circumstances that look very suspiciously like it was because of your religious or political views.”
Lawmakers have responded with legislation aimed at combating financial discrimination. In March, Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), for example, introduced the Fair Access to Banking Act (FIRM Act), which would bar federal regulators from penalizing or pressuring financial institutions based on reputational risk. A bipartisan House version was introduced the following month by Reps. Andy Barr (R-Ky.) and Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.).
“For too long, unelected regulators have used the vague and subjective concept of reputational risk to push political ideology under the guise of bank supervision,” Barr said in a statement. “The FIRM Act restores neutrality and integrity to our financial regulatory system and protects the right of all Americans to access banking services without fear of unlawful discrimination.”
The Fed’s move aligns it with other banking regulators that have recently taken similar action. In March, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) said it would remove references to reputational risk from its manuals and guidance documents.
“The OCC has never used reputation risk as a catch-all justification for supervisory action,” the agency said in a statement. “Nonetheless, the OCC believes removing references to reputation risk will improve transparency and confidence in the supervisory process.”
Days later, Travis Hill, acting chairman of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), informed Congress that the agency would also eliminate reputational risk as a standalone factor, calling it a concept that “has been abused in the past” and adds “no value from a safety and soundness perspective.”
During an April speech at the American Bankers Association summit, Hill said the FDIC was drafting a rule that would explicitly bar supervisors from criticizing or taking action against banks based on reputational risk—particularly if it relates to clients’ political, religious, or social views.
“We are also exploring additional ideas to comprehensively put an end to debanking,” Hill said. “Overall, we are prioritizing ensuring our regulatory approach promotes a vibrant, growing economy, while at the same time promoting a safe, sound, and resilient banking system.”
Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has also acknowledged the seriousness of the issue. Earlier this year, he told lawmakers during a congressional hearing that the Fed was taking a “fresh look” at reports of debanking, noting he had been “struck by the growing number of cases” where individuals or businesses were allegedly denied financial services.
Powell suggested that regulatory overreach and heightened risk aversion may be contributing factors and said the matter warranted closer examination.
Safeguarding Your American Dream: Discover the Power of America First Healthcare
In today’s economy, healthcare costs remain one of the biggest threats to financial stability and family security. Americans work hard to build a better life, yet rising medical expenses can quickly erode savings, force tough trade-offs, and even push families toward debt or bankruptcy. Medical bills continue to rank as the leading cause of personal bankruptcy in the United States, with millions facing underinsurance or unexpected out-of-pocket burdens that no one plans for. Many turn to government-run marketplace plans under the Affordable Care Act, hoping for relief, only to discover that what appears affordable on paper often delivers higher long-term costs, limited real protection, and coverage that may not align with personal values or family needs.
America First Healthcare stands out as a private insurance agency dedicated to helping conservatives and families secure better coverage and better rates through customized, values-aligned options. By conducting free insurance reviews, the agency uncovers hidden gaps in existing policies and connects clients with private alternatives that emphasize personal responsibility, small-government principles, and genuine affordability—often delivering up to 20% savings while providing stronger protection for the American Dream.
The allure of marketplace plans is easy to understand: open enrollment periods, premium tax credits for many households, and the promise of “comprehensive” benefits mandated by law. Yet recent data reveals a different reality, especially after the expiration of enhanced premium subsidies at the end of 2025. Enrollment for 2026 dropped by more than one million people compared to the prior year, with many shifting to lower-tier bronze plans to keep monthly premiums manageable.
These plans feature significantly higher deductibles—averaging around $7,500 nationally—and greater cost-sharing requirements. Families who once paid modest amounts after subsidies now face average premium increases of $65 or more per month, even as they accept plans that leave them responsible for thousands in upfront costs before meaningful coverage kicks in.
High deductibles create a dangerous barrier to care. Studies show that people in such plans are less likely to seek timely treatment for chronic conditions, attend preventive screenings, or fill necessary prescriptions. A seemingly minor illness or injury can balloon into major expenses when patients delay care until problems worsen. For a family of four, a single hospitalization, cancer diagnosis, or unexpected surgery can easily exceed the deductible, triggering coinsurance and out-of-pocket maximums that still leave substantial bills. One recent analysis noted that some proposed changes could push family deductibles toward $31,000 in future years, further exposing households to financial risk.
Beyond the numbers, marketplace plans often carry structural limitations. Coverage for certain critical services may include waiting periods or narrower networks that restrict access to preferred doctors and specialists. Preventive care is required to be covered without cost-sharing, but everything else—lab work, imaging, specialist visits, or ongoing treatment—typically waits until the deductible is met. This reactive model contrasts sharply with the proactive, holistic approach many families prefer, especially those focused on wellness, early intervention, and maintaining health to enjoy life rather than merely reacting to illness.
Values alignment represents another growing concern. Government-influenced plans operate within a framework shaped by federal mandates and political priorities that may not reflect conservative principles of limited government, personal freedom, and ethical stewardship. Families who want to direct their healthcare dollars toward providers and benefits that honor traditional values sometimes find marketplace options feel misaligned, forcing a compromise between affordability and conviction.
Private alternatives, by contrast, offer year-round flexibility without the restrictions of open enrollment windows. Independent agents can shop across a wider range of carriers to design plans tailored to specific family needs—whether that means lower deductibles for frequent medical users, broader provider networks, or add-ons that support wellness and preventive services from day one. Clients frequently report more stable premiums that do not automatically escalate each year, along with genuine cost savings once the full picture of deductibles, copays, and coverage depth is considered.
Take the experience of real families who made the switch. Amanda C. shared that her new plan felt “way better” than what she had through the marketplace. Johnny Y. noted his previous coverage kept increasing annually until he found a more stable private option. Sofia S. expressed delight with her plan and began recommending it to others. These stories echo a common theme: when families move beyond one-size-fits-all government marketplaces, they often discover customized protection that better safeguards both health and finances.
Founder Jordan Sarmiento’s own journey underscores the stakes. In 2021, a six-day hospitalization generated a $95,000 bill. Under a well-structured private “Conservative Care Coverage” plan, his out-of-pocket responsibility would have been just $500. That stark difference illustrates how thoughtful planning and private options can prevent a medical event from becoming a financial catastrophe.
Practical steps exist for anyone questioning their current coverage. Start with a no-obligation review of your existing policy to identify gaps—high deductibles, limited critical-care benefits, or escalating premiums. Compare total projected costs (premiums plus potential out-of-pocket expenses) rather than monthly premiums alone. Consider family health history, anticipated needs, and lifestyle priorities. Private agencies can present side-by-side options that include stronger wellness incentives, broader access, and plans built on shared values of self-reliance and freedom.
In an era when healthcare inflation continues to outpace general cost-of-living increases, relying solely on marketplace solutions carries growing risk. Families who proactively explore private alternatives frequently achieve meaningful savings while gaining peace of mind that their coverage truly works when needed most.
America First Healthcare makes this exploration straightforward through its free review process. Families and individuals receive personalized guidance to close coverage holes, reduce unnecessary expenses, and secure plans that align with conservative principles—protecting wallets, health, and the American Dream without government overreach. Many who complete a review discover they can enjoy better benefits for less, often saving up to 20% while gaining the customization and stability that marketplace plans struggle to deliver.
Ultimately, protecting your family’s future requires looking beyond the marketing of “affordable” government options. By understanding the long-term costs hidden in high deductibles, shifting coverage tiers, and values mismatches, Americans can make empowered choices. Private, values-driven insurance offers a smarter path—one that rewards diligence, supports wellness, and delivers real security. For those ready to move beyond the limitations of traditional marketplace plans, a simple review can reveal options designed to serve families, not bureaucracies. The American Dream thrives when individuals and families retain control over their healthcare decisions, and thoughtful private coverage plays a vital role in making that possible.
