The CEOs of Visa, Mastercard, PayPal Holdings and Stripe received letters Thursday from Federal Trade Commission Chair Andrew Ferguson, who demanded they not discriminate against customers based on political or religious grounds.

The FTC threatened enforcement action if customers are denied services for those reasons.

Any act to “deplatform customers or deny them access to financial products or services” may violate the Federal Trade Commission Act and “could lead to an FTC investigation and potential enforcement action,” the agency said in a Thursday press release. The FTC didn’t cite any specific infractions by the companies.

The commission is typically made up of five members, but has just two at the moment. President Donald Trump last fired two of the Democrats who sat on the commission.

  • BarneyPiccolo@lemmy.today
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    3 hours ago

    Nobody is being “debanked” except Trump, and it’s because his accounts were tied to criminal activity, not politics.

    Stop committing crime, and you can put the money in a bank.

    Meanwhile, MAGA is talking about making it illegal for undocumented people to have bank accounts. So who is actually denying banking privileges based on politics?

  • melsaskca@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    5 hours ago

    Credit card companies are just more middle-men in a whole sea of them. trump would rather you borrow from his “bankers”. Easy-credit but the vig will kill you.

  • kent_eh@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    37
    ·
    24 hours ago

    I really hope some non-US controlled credit card issuers and processors start to exist soon.

    The entire US financial system seems like such a risk to participate in these days.

    • BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      Not globally. Right now and for foreseeable future only crypto supports world wide. There are initiatives for EU wide payment processing but it won’t work outside

    • yabbadabaddon@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      12 hours ago

      I know it is not a payment processor but I think this needs more attention to what it got. The biggest smart card manufacturer was French. If they died (the company still exists but is a shadow of what it was), you’d have to thanks the NSA for it.

      The English Wikipedia is lacking but you’ll find more details here : https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gemplus

      The USA is fighting dirty to keep its position overall and we are not responding at all.

        • ඞmir@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          2 hours ago

          Oh shit nice! I’m Dutch so for me nothing changed, didn’t know it was live

    • BlackLaZoR@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 hours ago

      If stores like Itch.io deployed crypto payments few years ago and built solid user base on it, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

      • justastranger@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 hours ago

        They want to blanket ban porn after all. That’s why the announcement only mentions being debanked for being a conservative and specifically calls out legal transactions.

    • vane@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      23 hours ago

      Only if you register church of porn games where porn games would be worshiped.

      • Gathorall@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 hours ago

        Organizing a religion that emphasizes freedom and tries to incorporate all our likes or dislikes into it is one test of religious freedom I’ve always wanted to make.

        After all if you can globally mutilate children and harass every single other group in existence for religious purposes surely we can be allowed total media freedom, subsidies for our cultural high quality food and preferred parking for our subsidized luxury cars for our starter sacred privileges in society?

        • justastranger@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          7
          ·
          9 hours ago

          The Satanic Temple is close enough.

          THERE ARE SEVEN FUNDAMENTAL TENETS

          I One should strive to act with compassion and empathy toward all creatures in accordance with reason.

          II The struggle for justice is an ongoing and necessary pursuit that should prevail over laws and institutions.

          III One’s body is inviolable, subject to one’s own will alone.

          IV The freedoms of others should be respected, including the freedom to offend. To willfully and unjustly encroach upon the freedoms of another is to forgo one’s own.

          V Beliefs should conform to one’s best scientific understanding of the world. One should take care never to distort scientific facts to fit one’s beliefs.

          VI People are fallible. If one makes a mistake, one should do one’s best to rectify it and resolve any harm that might have been caused.

          VII Every tenet is a guiding principle designed to inspire nobility in action and thought. The spirit of compassion, wisdom, and justice should always prevail over the written or spoken word

  • Sam_Bass@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    25
    ·
    1 day ago

    Ah but its okay to disenfranchise those whose politics dont fit the federal narrative innit

    • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      1 day ago

      The right is mostly aligning with that, unless you’re talking about those young alt-righters, who are following a suggestion found on a pro-lolicon forum religiously.

  • someguy3@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    212
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    2 days ago

    This is interesting.

    Trump sued JPMorgan Chase and its CEO, Jamie Dimon, in January for $5 billion over what he alleged was the bank’s improper closure of his accounts in 2021 for political reasons. The bank is fighting the claims. The Trump Organization, led by the president’s sons, also sued Capital One last year over similar debanking allegations, and a federal judge last week dismissed that lawsuit, but gave the plaintiffs time to refile.

    Following that link:

    Trump sued JPMorgan and Dimon last month, seeking at least $5 billion in damages. He claims the alleged debanking came after Trump supporters stormed the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, shortly before the end of the president’s first term.

    So that’s what this is about.

    • JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      3 hours ago

      Wait wait wait, but trump (and magats) said everyone at the US 2020 insurrection that the only people there were Fed agent provocateurs and paid Antifa™™ actors.

      Well and then Trump pardoned them but that was just forgotten about and definitely unrelated.

    • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      180
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      2 days ago

      Trump has been debanked since the late 90s by almost all US banks, because when you bankrupt two casinos and frequently spend time with mobsters they considered loans to you “high risk” for some reason.

      He’s been getting loans via Europe (mostly Deutschbank… which is also Putin’s bank of choice), and Russia, for 30 years.

      That is, until he won the lottery by convincing the stupidest people alive to vote him into the highest seat of power.

      So now it’s payback time against all the banks he thinks wronged him.

        • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          46
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          2 days ago

          Actually, for the wealthy it does.

          Trump has been very wealthy since birth. The wealthy do not have bank accounts like your average wageslave like me, where their salary gets deposited regularly and they earn interest and make withdrawls - and perhaps have an attached home loan account, etc. We earn interest in high income accounts or term deposits and then pay tax on that earning - like suckers.

          The wealthy use an entirely different model that focuses on using debt as its main tool.

          Their assets including real estate, share portfolios, stock options and even expensive artwork are ‘good debt’, they perhaps don’t own them fully (they may be mortgaged, loan-backed or options, etc) but they’re assets that continue to grow in value over the medium term. If they sell them or divest them for real cash it becomes income that they must pay tax on. The wealthy hate paying tax. Solution: use the assets as collateral for loans and credit lines. This is how Trump lives like a king while (previously) not having much liquid cash, and also how Elon and most ultrawealthg do it - their entire personal spending is on credit accounts - debt - and by writing as much of it off as businesses expenses (meals, travel, security, etc) it all becomes tax deductable as well.

          This is the same reason a lot of business executives request most of their payment packages as stock or options - it reduces their taxable income and builds their real wealth substantially. If they want a property: mortgage against their stock & option collateral. If they need money: bank credit line with their assets as collateral.

          So when banks say to a member of the 1% such as Trump “we cannot give you a loan account, your collateral/outstanding loans at other fiancial institutions/criminal associates/track record is too risky for us”, that means he cannot use that bank and must look elsewhere. He is debanked by them for his purposes.

          • 9488fcea02a9@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            4
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            edit-2
            13 hours ago

            Billionaires are not the 1%… they’re the 0.1% of the 1%…

            I hate that occupy wall street picked such a stupid number to pick fights with. 1% is like a high earning doctor. Well off, but not like wealthy enough to buy votes and sway elections…

            • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              7
              ·
              9 hours ago

              Arguing semantics is kinda pointless when the message is that wealth needs to be distributed far better.

              Nobody at Occupy was protesting that just the billionaires need to be taxed much more and the ten-millionaires* should stay just as-is.

              *The top 1% in the USA have roughly $12 million USD net assets as of 2025. That is far more than they need to live a very comfortable life with many luxuries.

          • someguy3@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            6
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            They can use loans yes, but it’s still not what debanking means.

            Btw executives get stock options because the board of directors think that gives them incentive to get the stock price up. And deferred taxes yes.

            • pulsewidth@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              9 hours ago

              You’re being pedantic.

              There are multiple types of de-banking. One explicitly applie:

              “Debanking refers to the practice by financial institutions of declining or limiting financial services to businesses across whole sectors if they are assessed as having a higher money laundering and terrorism financing (ML/TF) risk.”

          • Uruanna@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            1 day ago

            Doesn’t matter, his base will guess what it means and eat it if he complains about it.

        • Holytimes@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          1 day ago

          For the wealthy at that level it is effectively debanked. If anything it’s even more effective then a poor person getting normal debanked.

    • JasonDJ@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      93
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      And certainly wouldn’t be selectively enforced anyway. This is 100% “rules for thee not for me” shit.

      Like if they get debanked for “religious” or “political” reasons (esp. when they are the ones politicizing literally everything), it’s a crime.

      Things that they consider political but sensible people consider “human rights”, tho? They sleep.

      • wizardbeard@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        2 days ago

        Totally a slow reaction to all the right wing stuff like info wars that was being debanked a number of years ago.

        Wikileaks? What was that?

  • db0@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    84
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    2 days ago

    Anarchist/Environmentalists get debanked: I sleep.

    Epstein-club child-rapist billionaires get the slightest inconvenience: Real Shit.

  • favoredponcho@lemmy.zip
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    54
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    2 days ago

    That is for conservatives only though. The judges on the ICC who have been debanked for ruling against Netanyahu can pound sand.