The Digital Chamber pushed back on Senator Elizabeth Warren’s May 18, 2026 letter challenging the OCC’s approval of national trust charters for digital-asset firms. The group argued that the charters are lawful, custody-focused and limited in scope, rather than a backdoor path to full banking powers.
The rebuttal, sent to Comptroller Jonathan Gould on May 26, framed the approvals as a way to bring crypto custody under federal supervision. The central distinction is that these entities do not accept FDIC-insured deposits, which the Digital Chamber says limits systemic banking risk.
Warren Challenges the OCC’s Legal Authority
Senator Warren argued that approvals for entities including Coinbase, Ripple and Circle could grant “bank-like” status without equivalent safeguards. Her letter questioned whether the OCC had exceeded its authority under the National Bank Act, and asked the agency to provide applications and legal analyses by June 1, 2026.
The Digital Chamber countered that the OCC’s actions fall within longstanding chartering powers. It described the charters as tailored instruments for custody and fiduciary services, not permissions for broad deposit-taking or lending activity.
The group also cited the GENIUS Act as part of its statutory rationale. Its argument is that federal trust charters create clearer supervisory pathways, especially for firms managing digital assets, private keys and customer custody obligations.
The companies tied to the broader charter debate include Coinbase, Ripple, Circle, Paxos, Fidelity Digital Assets, BitGo, Crypto.com’s Foris DAX, Stripe’s Bridge and Protego. Their inclusion shows how widely the dispute could affect crypto custody infrastructure, not just one applicant or one business model.
Custody Oversight Becomes the Real Battleground
At the operational level, the debate centers on custody architecture, key management and supervision. Chartered trust banks generally face exams, reporting duties and control expectations, affecting custody nodes, hardware security modules and third-party attestations.
The Digital Chamber argues that this structure reduces uncertainty for counterparties and infrastructure providers. Federal supervision could standardize custody controls and external audits, making risk models clearer for exchanges, custodians and institutional clients.
Warren’s critique points in the opposite direction. She warned that custody-focused charters could become regulatory arbitrage, blurring the line between trust companies and deposit-taking banks if activity expands beyond narrow custody functions.
The June 1 deadline will shape the next phase of the dispute. The OCC’s response could determine whether the issue moves toward congressional oversight or administrative clarification, with implications for permissible activities under national trust charters.
For market participants, the practical takeaway is to prepare for either clearer federal custody standards or tighter constraints. If the OCC’s interpretation holds, crypto trust charters could accelerate compliance standardization, while a tougher review could limit activities that resemble deposit-like intermediation.
