The Comptroller of the Currency says the nation's nine largest banks denied financial services to customers based on their political, religious, or social beliefs, according to a regulatory review released Wednesday.

The OCC reviewed nearly 100,000 complaints and received approximately 50,000 documents from JPMorgan Chase Bank, Bank of America, Citibank, Wells Fargo Bank, U.S. Bank, Capital One, PNC Bank, TD Bank, and BMO Bank regarding their policies, procedures, practices, and individual customer decisions.

The federal banking watchdog determined that the banks' sweeping internal guidelines lacked objective, risk-based criteria, effectively shutting out legitimate customers and businesses based on ideological leanings rather than financial risk.

The OCC said its findings reveal a systematic effort within the banking sector to restrict access for politically sensitive industries through both public and nonpublic policies.

Federal regulators found that lenders restricted certain sectors' access to financial services, including oil and gas exploration; coal mining; firearms or ammunition manufacturing or distribution; construction or operation of detention facilities; and the manufacturing, distribution or online retail of tobacco or e-cigarettes.

The Trump administration has voiced growing concerns over "de-banking" and the use of the financial system to achieve social and political objectives.

"Today's report provides irrefutable evidence that the nation's largest banks have denied, debanked, and discriminated against customers and lawful businesses," said Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan Gould. "Americans should have access to financial services regardless of their beliefs, affiliations, or political views. "

All nine banks report having reassessed the role of reputation risk in decisions to accept or terminate new customers, according to the OCC's report. Several banks said they had minimized reliance on reputation risk, and bank employees now must consider it in the context of other financial or business consequences, including credit risk, money laundering and terrorist financing risk.

The Bank Policy Institute, a lobbying group that represents the banks, said in a statement in reaction to the report, "We support efforts to establish clear and consistent standards that promote access while maintaining sound risk management, including the administration's recent efforts to prioritize supervisory attention on material financial risk and rather than reputational risk."

The group also noted it would continue to work with the administration and Congress on proposals that ensure that political or religious beliefs do not unfairly affect customers' access to banking services.

JPMorgan Chase said in a statement, "We take this seriously, learned from it, and improved the way we do business. We agree with the Administration on a broader point: years of operating in a regulatory environment that often second-guessed decisions contributed to a culture of caution across the banking industry. That system needs fixing."

The bank says its policies prohibit discrimination against customers based on political or religious views.

A spokesperson for Wells Fargo and Citigroup declined to comment on the OCC's report, while PNC said it was reviewing the findings.

Bank of America, U.S. Bank and Capital One had not responded for comment as of this writing.

The review was directed by President Trump's executive order, "Guaranteeing Fair Access to Banking for All Americans," to determine whether these banks' policies or practices required or influenced banks to deny or limit access to financial services to Americans because of their political or religious beliefs or lawful business activities.

The OCC is considering further actions and writing new rules to prevent banks from discriminating against customers or prospective customers based on their political or religious beliefs. The OCC is also coordinating its debanking review with the reviews of other federal and state partners.

"Notwithstanding certain efforts by the largest banks to rein in these practices, I am not confident that they will be enough," said Gould.

Jennifer Schonberger is a veteran financial journalist covering markets, the economy, and investing. At Yahoo Finance, she covers the Federal Reserve, Congress, the White House, the Treasury, the SEC, the economy, cryptocurrencies, and the intersection of Washington policy with finance. Follow her on X @Jenniferisms and on Instagram.

David Hollerith is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance covering the cryptocurrency and stock markets. Follow him on X at @DsHollers.

Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices

Read the latest financial and business news from Yahoo Finance

This article originally appeared on Yahoo Finance at https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/article/federal-watchdog-says-9-large-us-banks-denied-service-to-customers-over-political-or-religious-views-160634194.html

In a highly unusual step, federal agents this week aggressively intensified their investigations into Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota, weeks before she stands for reelection in her home district. 

The Department of Justice on Tuesday subpoenaed relatives of Omar’s family members, including her sister Sahra Noor, according to The New York Times. The grand jury subpoenas were issued shortly after a raid of the lawmaker’s residence in Washington, D.C. on Monday. 

The judicial search warrant, which is under seal, was executed by Homeland Security Investigations, the investigative branch of Immigration and Customs Enforcement. Although the Department of Justice did not provide any more details of the investigation, multiple outlets, citing anonymous sources, reported that the search stemmed from Omar’s immigration paperwork, which was filled out by her late father when she was a child. 

Prior to the investigation, multiple Trump Administration officials have accused Omar of immigration fraud without presenting any evidence. In a podcast interview in March, Vice President JD Vance said the White House was exploring “legal remedies” to her alleged immigration fraud. Last month, Homeland Security Secretary Markwayne Mullin said the investigation into Omar was “ongoing” and dismissed efforts to frame the case as political retribution.

“If we actually move a case forward, it’s not a political case. It's actually a case because they did things wrong,” Mullin said during the interview with right-wing podcaster Benny Johnson. 

Omar, who has long denied the allegations, condemned the raid on her home as “political intimidation” and said she will “not be silenced.” 

President Trump, along with many MAGA Republicans, has repeatedly floated the idea of revoking Omar’s citizenship, a process also known as denaturalization, and deporting her. 

But legal and immigration experts tell TIME that denaturalizing a U.S. citizen is a rare and difficult process, one that requires federal authorities to clear a high bar in front of a federal judge. Here’s what to know about how the process works. 

How does denaturalization work?

Stripping someone of their citizenship is a more arduous legal process than most other immigration efforts that involve the courts. Deportation proceedings, for instance, are initiated by ICE agents under the Department of Homeland Security and are then approved by immigration judges who are hired and work within the Department of Justice. The denaturalization process, on the other hand, must be approved by an independent federal judge, who evaluates the request by a higher standard.  

All denaturalization efforts begin at DOJ. In order to revoke a naturalized person’s citizenship, a DOJ lawyer must decide whether to file a civil or a criminal petition in court. Yuripzy Morgan, an attorney and host of Free Range National podcase, said a civil complaint does not have a statute of limitation, whereas a criminal complaint has a statute of limitation of 10 years and must clear a much higher legal bar. 

“For civil denaturalization, the government has to show that there is clear, convincing, and unequivocal evidence that the person in question obtained their naturalization either illegally, or they willfully misrepresented a material fact, ” Morgan says. She stressed that simply having an error in an immigration document doesn't mean that a judge is going to approve stripping a person of their citizenship. 

For a criminal denaturalization conviction, the federal government must show “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” that the individual knowingly obtained citizenship through fraud, which is the highest legal standard of proof required to secure a criminal conviction. In 2017, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in Maslenjak v. United States that only an illegal act that played a role in a person’s citizenship application could lead to criminal denaturalization, further narrowing down the scope of such efforts. 

Omar’s father filled out and submitted her citizenship application on her behalf when she was 17. It is unclear what evidence, if any, the federal government has to show that anything in the application was fraudulent, or that Omar or her father intentionally misrepresented anything in that application. 

Andrew Arthur, a former immigration judge and a resident fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies, pointed out that even after someone gets denaturalized, a deportation is not guaranteed. The person would still be able to retain their previous legal immigration status until a final order of removal is issued to the person by ICE.

“If they had a green card before they naturalized, even after they get denaturalized, they are going to have a green card,” Arthur says. 

How did Rep. Omar get naturalized as a U.S. citizen?

According to Omar’s House biography, Omar and her family fled her home country Somalia when she was eight. The family eventually sought asylum in the United States in 1995. She told The New York Times that she became a U.S. citizen in 2000 when she was 17. 

At the time Omar went through the process, federal law allowed immigrants under the age of 18 to get naturalized as U.S. citizens if both of their parents had become U.S. citizens. The law was eventually replaced by a new law in 2001, which only requires one parent to become a citizen for the children to be naturalized. 

At the center of this investigation is whether Omar’s father, Nur Omar Mohamed, lied about her age in immigration documents so she could be eligible to derive citizenship through him, according to The Washington Post, which cited two unnamed sources. 

According to Arthur, the former immigration judge, if Omar was 18 at the time of the naturalization application, she may have been able to apply for her citizenship on her own after having a valid green card for five years. 

The allegations regarding Omar’s citizenship gained attention among conservative activists and commentators starting in 2019, when Omar became a member of Congress. Shortly after her election, Omar’s staff sought to change her official birth year in public records from 1981 to 1982, according to multiple outlets.

How often does the U.S. government strip people of their citizenship?

Despite the renewed push from the second Trump administration, denaturalization remains an exceedingly rare legal process. According to the Migration Policy Institute, a Washington, D.C.-based think tank, an average of 11 denaturalization cases were filed per year between 1990 and 2017. 

Denaturalization efforts have increased in Trump’s second term. The DOJ has announced efforts to strip at least 108 people of their citizenship in 2026. That is still considerably smaller than the hundreds of thousands of people whom the U.S. government grants citizenship to through naturalization every year.

This article originally appeared on Time at https://time.com/article/2026/10/14/ilhan-omar-citizenship-investigation-denaturalization-DOJ/

Volodymyr Zelensky said that he felt betrayed by Donald Trump, and warned the US president was not acting on the “right side of history”.

“It is a pity that we are losing a strong partner,” the Ukrainian leader said on Wednesday amid an escalating public clash with his American counterpart.

Relations between Kyiv and the White House have sharply deteriorated after Mr Trump agreed on Friday to waive sanctions on Russia to import diesel.

The US president has been pressuring Ukraine to halt its strikes on Russian oil refineries, blaming Kyiv – not the Iran war – for rising energy prices. On Saturday he said Ukraine needed “a new president”.

In an interview with Piers Morgan Uncensored on Wednesday, Mr Zelensky said he would not resign under US pressure.

Asked whether he felt “betrayed” by recent events, he said: “Really, yes, between us. But it’s a little bit more complicated than just my emotions or my feelings.

“Our country has to survive, and we count on our real partners, strategic partners, the United States and President Trump. They wanted us not to attack. My opinion was, it is not fair.”

He suggested Mr Trump’s diesel deal with Vladimir Putin was an “attempt to push Ukraine to capitulation” and give up the Donbas region, a concession which the Russian leader has demanded before he will consider ending his invasion.

‘People will die’

The US has also threatened to suspend intelligence-sharing to force Ukraine to stop its refinery attacks.

Mr Zelensky claimed on Tuesday that Kyiv had stopped receiving warnings from allies about missile attacks. He also accused Elon Musk, the tech billionaire, of imposing limits on his Starlink technology, which is critical as a communication device for Ukrainian forces on the front line.

“I am sure they knew what they did, absolutely. Because it was 1am at night, Starlink was blocked by SpaceX and the United States,” Mr Zelensky said.

Addressing Mr Musk directly, he added: “This decision will bring a lot of human losses. Of course, people will die.”

Writing on X, Mr Musk blamed the US government for the restrictions. An official speaking to Axios denied having anything to do with the alleged Starlink restrictions.

Mykhailo Fedorov, the Ukrainian defence minister, has since confirmed Starlink access has been restored and thanked Mr Musk.

Starlink connectivity at speeds of up to 160 km/h is being restored.Removing Starshield's speed limit entirely is now critical for Ukraine's defense. Thank you, @elonmusk. We hope for your continued support.

— Mykhailo Fedorov (@FedorovMykhailo) October 14, 2026

Nato, EU and Ukrainian officials told The Telegraph that they had seen no signs that US intelligence-sharing had stopped.

The US has not commented on the matter and Kyiv is still waiting to hear from the Trump administration, a Ukrainian official familiar with discussions told The Telegraph.

Kyiv maintains it has not hit any oil refineries since Mr Trump announced an energy ceasefire on Sunday.

During Wednesday’s visit to the UK, Mr Zelensky also pressed Andy Burnham to use the proceeds of Roman Abramovich’s sale of Chelsea Football Club to support Ukraine.

Ahead of their Downing Street meeting, sources said the Ukrainian president would argue that the £2.5bn funds were needed to offset the damage done by Mr Trump’s diesel deal with Putin.

Mr Zelensky also pushed Mr Burnham to confiscate frozen Russian assets held in Britain to ratchet up the economic pressure on Moscow.

The EU failed last year to reach a decision on the seizure of some €210bn (£183bn) in Russian state bank assets being held on the Continent, mainly in Belgium.

Sir Keir Starmer, the then prime minister, used the failure to back down on a promise to do the same.

Britain has been locked in a dispute with Mr Abramovich, who has close ties to Putin, about the use of the proceeds of the Chelsea sale.

The Russian oligarch was sanctioned by the Government following the invasion of Ukraine in February 2022.

Ministers eventually allowed the billionaire to sell the football club based on the condition that the money would go to “victims of the war in Ukraine”.

Mr Abramovich has since set up the Foundation for the Victims of Conflict to oversee the dispersal of the funds.

But his organisation has disagreed with the Government about whether the money can be spent on humanitarian causes across a range of countries.

After months without an update, Ukrainian officials put the issue on Mr Zelensky’s agenda to raise with Mr Burnham during their meeting.

Before the talks, the Prime Minister told the House of Commons that he would seek to mend relations between Kyiv and Washington.

Speaking in the Commons, Mr Burnham told MPs: “What I have to do in my role is try and repair bridges so that the support comes back.

“Therefore I should, at this moment in time, be careful in terms of laying the ground to bring people back together. That is the role I intend to play.”

Mr Zelensky also met the King at Buckingham Palace on Wednesday afternoon.

In a social media post, the Ukrainian president said: “I thank the King, the Prime Minister, and all of Britain for their support!”

After his meetings in London, he will travel to hold talks with European leaders at a summit in Brussels.

This article originally appeared on The Telegraph at https://uk.news.yahoo.com/zelensky-feel-betrayed-trump-173810626.html