Elizabeth Warren demands OCC records on 9 crypto trust bank charters

A fight over crypto trust bank charters is now out in the open, and it goes well beyond one Senate letter. Senator Elizabeth Warren sent a letter to the OCC on May 18, 2026, demanding records tied to nine approved national trust bank charters that she says could let crypto firms gain bank-like access without the same safeguards imposed on traditional banks.

The request zeroes in on some of the biggest names in the sector. Warren is seeking full applications and confidential exhibits connected to approvals involving Ripple National Trust Bank, Coinbase National Trust Company, Paxos, Fidelity Digital Assets, and BitGo. She gave the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency until June 1 to respond.

That deadline matters because the dispute is quickly becoming a broader test of how far Washington is willing to let crypto firms move into federal banking infrastructure. At stake is whether these trust approvals are treated as tightly defined fiduciary charters or as a back door to a new class of crypto banking.

Warren presses the OCC over nine crypto trust charters

Warren’s May 18, 2026 letter asks the OCC for a full record of nine approved national trust bank charters. The scope is broad: she wants complete applications, including confidential exhibits, not just summaries or public-facing materials.

She is also asking for more than paperwork. Her request seeks a breakdown of what each approved institution plans to do and whether those activities qualify as fiduciary functions under federal law. In addition, she wants the OCC’s legal analysis for allowing activities such as stablecoin issuance under the current trust bank framework.

The June 1 response deadline adds pressure to a debate that is becoming one of the most closely watched regulatory fights around crypto trust bank charters in the United States.

Why the approvals are under scrutiny

Warren’s central argument is that these approvals may allow firms to act like “crypto banks” while avoiding the full set of traditional banking safeguards. Her criticism focuses on consumer protection, deposit insurance, and financial stability rules that apply to national banks under the National Bank Act.

According to the details at issue, the OCC has approved nine national trust bank charters since December 2025 for firms primarily engaged in stablecoin issuance and digital asset custody. That matters because trust charters can carry a kind of institutional legitimacy. For critics, that looks like an expansion of crypto banking power. For supporters, it looks like bringing crypto activity into a clearer and more supervised framework.

This is one of the main reasons the clash is drawing attention far beyond Capitol Hill. The fight is not simply about one firm or one stablecoin. Rather, it is about whether federal trust charters can become the legal rails for custody, payments, and other digital asset services in the U.S.

The firms and activities in focus

Among the firms named in the dispute are:

• Ripple National Trust Bank
• Coinbase National Trust Company
• Paxos
• Fidelity Digital Assets
• BitGo

The broader category described in the dispute centers on businesses involved in stablecoin issuance and digital asset custody. Warren is specifically asking the OCC to explain whether non-fiduciary activities are being permitted under charters that are supposed to be limited in scope.

That question could become the dividing line in the whole case. In practice, the answer may determine how far crypto trust bank charters can stretch inside the federal banking system.

The industry pushes back

The crypto industry did not wait long to respond. The Digital Chamber urged the OCC to defend the approvals, arguing that the challenge misstates what these charters actually allow.

Digital Chamber CEO Cody Carbone sent a letter to Comptroller Jonathan Gould pressing that point. The industry’s position is that these trust approvals do not authorize deposit-taking or lending and are instead narrowly limited to fiduciary and custody functions.

That distinction is central to the defense. If the charters are truly limited in that way, industry advocates argue, calling them a broad banking expansion is inaccurate. If lawmakers convince regulators otherwise, however, the approvals could face far more intense scrutiny.

Why this matters for Coinbase, Ripple, and U.S. crypto banking

For companies trying to build inside the U.S. rather than outside it, this dispute cuts to the core of their strategy. A trust charter can offer a regulated relationship with federal banking authorities, something that can matter deeply for institutional partnerships and large-scale custody operations.

That is why the Coinbase Ripple banking angle has become so closely watched. The issue is not just branding or prestige. It is whether major crypto firms can secure a durable domestic path for custody and stablecoin-related services under recognized federal oversight.

This is also where the political and market stakes begin to merge. If regulators hold firm, firms operating under these charters could gain stronger footing in the U.S. institutional market. If the approvals are narrowed, challenged, or reconsidered, legal uncertainty could deepen just as more infrastructure is being built around stablecoins and digital asset custody.

How the GENIUS Act fits into the dispute

The battle is also being framed around the GENIUS Act stablecoin framework. The dispute is linked to the view that the act creates clearer pathways for trust companies and stablecoin services.

Warren’s push for records comes as those pathways are gaining more attention. The Digital Chamber argues the approvals align with existing law and with congressional direction established by the GENIUS Act stablecoin framework.

That makes this more than a fight over administrative records. It is turning into a test of whether Congress’s push for more defined crypto rules will translate into real operating permissions for trust-chartered firms.

Related pressure from Ripple at the SEC

At the same time, Ripple has been active on another regulatory front. On May 22, Ripple sent a follow-up letter to the SEC Crypto Task Force asking for stablecoins to be treated as proper collateral.

Its requests included treatment for RLUSD with a 0% haircut based on its mint-burn relationship with broker-dealers, equivalent treatment for XRP to BTC and ETH based on non-securities classification, and recognition of on-chain registries as the sole authoritative legal record of ownership.

That is a separate matter from Warren’s OCC inquiry, but together they show how crypto firms are pressing for recognition across multiple parts of the federal regulatory system at once.

The bigger test for crypto trust bank charters

The immediate question is whether the OCC will produce the materials Warren requested by June 1. The larger question is what those records may reveal about how regulators are defining fiduciary banking in the digital asset era.

This is why crypto trust bank charters have become such a flashpoint. They sit at the intersection of custody, stablecoin infrastructure, banking legitimacy, and political oversight. For the industry, they offer a possible domestic route to scale. For critics, they may represent a major regulatory concession without the full protections of traditional banking.

The next move belongs to the OCC, but the consequences will reach much further than one agency response. They could shape how U.S. institutional crypto banking is built, who gets to build it, and how much of that build-out stays onshore.