5 times politics impacted banking in 2025

President Donald Trump unveils new tariffs on U.S. trade partners on April 2, 2025.

Key Insight: While bank CEOs don't typically weigh in on political debates or discuss government policy, 2025 under the second Trump administration was filled with such moments.
Expert Quote: "Volatility causes people to do nothing. It just raises a lot of questions, and questions typically slow things down." —Dan Rollins, CEO of Cadence Bank
Supporting Data: Tariffs targeted nearly all U.S. trading partners in April, disrupting client supply chains.

Source: Bullets generated by AI with editorial review

Bankers try to avoid political squabbles. When bank CEOs report earnings, they don't typically weigh in on the political debates of the moment, and discuss government policy only when it directly affects their business.

But under the second Trump administration, 2025 was filled with such moments. Tariffs snarled supply chains, and then uncertainty over those tariffs slowed down bank mergers. Crusades against antifa and "debanking" raised the specter of political investigations. And perhaps least predictably, the president abruptly discontinued the penny, causing headaches for cash businesses and the banks that work with them.

So it's been a hard year for banks to stay out of the political fray. Here are five ways in which politics invaded the world of banking in 2025:

Trump's tariffs

In April, President Trump imposed tariffs against nearly all U.S. trading partners at historic levels. That alone caused headaches for many commercial banks' clients, many of whom had to rework their supply chains.

But the biggest difficulty came later, as Trump sporadically raised, lowered, paused or canceled the various levies at unexpected moments. The resulting economic uncertainty caused a slowdown in mergers and acquisitions, among other things, not only for banks' clients but among banks themselves.

"Volatility causes people to do nothing," Dan Rollins, CEO of Cadence Bank, told American Banker in April. "It just raises a lot of questions, and questions typically slow things down."

Read more:

Bank mergers and acquisitions in doubt with tariff whiplash

The war on 'debanking'

In January, during the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump directly accused Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan of refusing to do business with conservative clients. "What you're doing is wrong," the president told Moynihan during a live interview.

Thus began the president's crusade against "debanking," the perceived blacklisting of right-wing customers. Since January, Trump has signed an executive order against the practice, regulators have loudly denounced it, JPMorganChase has faced federal questioning about it, and congressional Republicans have considered legislation against it.

In the same year, Trump also signed an order targeting any bank that funds or supports antifa, a vaguely defined left-wing movement. The apparent contradiction between these two orders — one forbidding the rejection of a political group, the other demanding it — is likely to cause confusion for banks trying to toe the line. As 2026 begins, these difficulties show no sign of abating.

Read more:

GOP senators weigh penalties, fault for debanking

Pressure on the Fed

Historically, the Federal Reserve has enjoyed a high level of independence from the rest of American government, allowing it to make what are sometimes unpopular decisions for the long-term health of the U.S. economy.

Trump has directly challenged that independence. Over the past year, the president has repeatedly commanded the central bank to lower interest rates, then lashed out at its governors when they failed to do so as quickly as he would like.

In April, Trump openly wished for the "termination" of Fed Chair Jerome Powell, though he stopped short of actually firing him. In August, he attempted to fire Fed Governor Lisa Cook, but Cook sued for wrongful termination and has remained at her post while her case plays out. Meanwhile, Trump nominated a member of his own cabinet, Stephen Miran, to serve out the remainder of a departing governor's term. Since then, Miran has twice voted for steeper rate cuts than his colleagues recommended.

Read more:

Trump's fixation on removing Powell ignores real risks

Penny problems

Trump called for the end of the penny in February, and the U.S. Mint stopped printing them in mass quantities over the summer. Since then, a shortage of the one-cent coins has spread from coast to coast. Retailers have struggled to give customers exact change, and the banks and credit unions that normally supply them with change have increasingly come up short.

The problem isn't just with production; penny circulation has also been blocked. The Federal Reserve operates coin distribution terminals across the country, which normally act as clearinghouses for change: Banks with too many of a certain coin can drop them off, and banks in need of more coins can pick them up. But in the latter half of 2025, most of these terminals stopped supplying or accepting pennies, cutting off the flow in both directions.

All the while, the federal government has provided no guidance on how to handle these new challenges. As banks, retailers and lawmakers have demanded answers, American Banker has kept close tabs on the story.

Read more:

Banks plead for federal guidance as penny shortage spreads

Quarterly earnings

It's not just Trump's policies that have shaken up the banking industry; sometimes just a proposal has been enough to send shockwaves.

One example came in September, when the president called for the end of quarterly earnings reports, favoring a semiannual schedule instead. Trump floated the idea in a social media post, not an executive order, and he uncharacteristically hedged it by saying the final decision would be subject to SEC approval.

Still, the suggestion was music to many bankers' ears. Industry advocates have long lobbied for a switch to a six-month earnings schedule, similar to the European Union's policy, complaining that America's quarterly reports take up valuable time and lock companies into short-term thinking.

"Getting rid of quarterly reporting has been a debate for decades," said Jaret Seiberg, an analyst at TD Cowen. "What's different this time is we have a president and an SEC chair who appear open to acting."

Read more:

What Trump's push to end quarterly reports means for banks

	About Nathan
twitter	NathPlac
mailto	nathan.place@arizent.com
linkedin	nathan-place-01451485/