FILE – The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation seal is shown outside its headquarters, March 14, 2023. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta, File) The U.S. has a financial inclusion crisis. Some special interest groups want to solve it by making it harder to start a bank. That makes no sense.
Millions of Americans remain underserved by traditional banks. According to the 2023 FDIC National Survey, 19 million households are underbanked, and another 5.6 million are entirely outside the banking system. These are hard-working families, small-business owners, consumers rebuilding credit, and households trying to navigate unexpected expenses in an economy where financial shocks arrive with little warning. As new firms are seeking entry into the regulated banking system, special interest groups are urging regulators to slam the door shut.
That debate is larger than any one company.
Across the country, fintechs and other nontraditional financial firms are exploring bank charters and other supervised pathways to enter the regulated financial system. Industry reporting shows that interest in chartering has increased substantially in recent years, even as approvals remain difficult and contentious. Policymakers regularly call for greater competition, innovation and financial inclusion; to answer that call, America should be asking how to encourage qualified new entrants into banking.
The public comments about Enova International’s charter application provide a useful example of the broader trend. Enova, an online lender serving consumers who often fall outside traditional underwriting models, is seeking to acquire Grasshopper Bancorp, which includes its national charter. This transaction would place Enova inside the highly regulated banking system through bank ownership. In response, activist organizations and politicians have launched coordinated efforts urging regulators to block the deal.
The pattern recalls Operation Choke Point, during which Obama-era regulators leaned on banks to cut ties with lawful but politically disfavored businesses, a history that prompted President Trump’s 2025 executive order on fair banking. Reasonable people can disagree about Enova’s products or business model. Regulators should examine the application carefully and objectively.
That is precisely the point.
The question is not whether Enova deserves automatic approval. The question is whether charter decisions will be made according to law, evidence, and supervisory standards or according to political campaigns organized by groups seeking to use the charter process to achieve policy goals outside the bounds of the legislative process.
Today’s target happens to be Enova. Tomorrow it could be another fintech, a payments company, a specialty lender, or a future institution. Once charter approvals become political contests rather than regulatory reviews, the consequences extend far beyond any individual application.
This should concern anyone who cares about the future of American banking.
For most of the country’s history, policymakers understood that a healthy banking system required new entrants, fresh capital, new ideas, and competition. New banks create pressure on incumbents, expand consumer choice, and develop products for customers legacy institutions often overlook. In most industries, policymakers welcome that kind of competition. Banking should not be different.
America has too few institutions competing to serve working families.
Following the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic, the banking system became more concentrated and increasingly focused on customers who fit traditional underwriting profiles. According to the Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, the United States lost more than 5,400 bank branches between 2019 and 2023, contributing to an increase in banking deserts. The real issue is larger than the number of branches. A consumer can have a checking account, a banking app, and access to modern financial tools and still be unable to obtain credit when a car breaks down, a medical bill arrives, or a small business needs working capital.
That is where the consequences of charter politicization become real.
The ultimate victims are the consumers who end up with fewer institutions competing for their business, fewer sources of credit, fewer opportunities to build financial stability, and fewer options when financial emergencies arise. The transmission still needs repair. The shift still starts Monday morning. The utility bill still comes due. The small business still needs to make payroll. Eliminating a financial product does not eliminate the financial problem that created demand for it.
Too often, special interest groups measure success by the number of loans eliminated. Consumers measure success by whether they solved the problem. Research from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York underscores the risk of confusing those goals. Recent studies found that interest-rate caps reduced access to credit for higher-risk borrowers while failing to improve delinquency outcomes. In practical terms, many consumers lost options without achieving better financial results.
None of this means regulators should simply approve every application that crosses their desks. Bank charters are not favors. They are gateways into one of the most heavily supervised sectors of the economy. Applicants should be scrutinized rigorously. Regulators should examine management, capitalization, compliance systems, consumer-protection controls, and safety-and-soundness risks. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency exists to ensure precisely that kind of discipline.
Rigor is incompatible with politicization.
Perhaps Enova will be approved. Perhaps regulators will reject the application. What matters is that the decision be made according to the facts, the law and the record. Whichever interest group can generate the loudest pressure campaign cannot be allowed to influence the charter-granting decision.
America needs more competition, more innovation, more banks, and more institutions willing to serve consumers who have too often been left behind. The dangerous politicization of bank charters threatens all four. If policymakers are serious about financial inclusion, they should defend a charter process that is rigorous, independent and fair.
Patrick M. Brenner is president and CEO of the Southwest Public Policy Institute.
Add as preferred source on Google Tags Enova International FDIC Grasshopper Bancorp united statesCopyright 2026 Nexstar Media Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Comments: Link copiedMore Opinions - Finance News
See All
Opinions - Finance Our current housing crisis began in 2008 — and it never ended by Valerie White, opinion contributor 4 days ago Opinions - Finance / 4 days ago 
