A DeFi project closely linked to President Donald Trump is attempting something no crypto platform tied to a sitting U.S. leader has done before: step directly into the federal banking system.
World Liberty Financial is no longer positioning itself solely as a crypto-native experiment. Instead, it is testing whether a politically connected blockchain project can operate inside America’s regulated financial core – and whether regulators are willing to allow it.
Key Takeaways
World Liberty Financial is seeking a national trust bank charter to bring its stablecoin operations under direct U.S. federal oversight.
The move would turn WLFI into a regulated, digital-first banking entity rather than a traditional commercial bank.
Because the project is linked to President Donald Trump, the application has become a political flashpoint with broader implications for U.S. crypto regulation.
From DeFi Protocol to Federally Supervised Entity
Behind the scenes, WLFI has applied for a national trust bank charter through its subsidiary WLTC Holdings LLC. The application was submitted to the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, signaling a strategic pivot away from pure decentralization toward formal federal oversight.
If approved, the resulting entity, World Liberty Trust Company, would not resemble a traditional consumer bank. There would be no lending, no checking accounts, and no credit products. Instead, the bank would function as infrastructure for stablecoins – issuing and redeeming WLFI’s USD1 token, holding reserves, offering custody, and converting other major stablecoins into its own.
In effect, WLFI is attempting to become a regulated on-ramp between crypto liquidity and the U.S. financial system.
Why This Charter Is Different From Others
Crypto firms pursuing bank-like status is not new. Companies such as Ripple and Kraken have explored similar regulatory paths. What sets WLFI apart is not the structure of the charter, but the political gravity surrounding it.
Because the project is backed by the sitting president and managed by Trump family members, its application is being viewed as a real-world stress test for U.S. crypto regulation. Approval could be interpreted as a green light for deeper crypto integration into American finance. Rejection could signal that political ties complicate, rather than accelerate, regulatory acceptance.
A Political Lightning Rod
The bank charter bid has already intensified partisan divisions in Washington. Supporters argue the move reinforces U.S. leadership in digital finance and aligns with Trump’s pro-crypto agenda. Opponents see it as a textbook conflict of interest, where public authority and private crypto ventures overlap too closely.
These tensions are not theoretical. Democratic lawmakers have introduced multiple bills aimed at limiting the ability of elected officials and their families to profit from digital assets or influence crypto markets. While those efforts have stalled, WLFI’s banking ambitions have brought the debate back into focus.
Growth Fueled by Speed – and Scrutiny
WLFI’s regulatory push comes after a period of explosive growth. Since its 2024 launch, the project has raised hundreds of millions of dollars through token sales, secured major foreign investment, and rapidly expanded the footprint of its USD1 stablecoin.
But the speed of that ascent has also drawn criticism. Allegations have surfaced around conflicts of interest, foreign capital exposure, and investor favoritism. WLFI has denied wrongdoing, yet the controversies have amplified concerns about what happens when crypto scale, political power, and financial infrastructure intersect.
A Defining Moment for Crypto and Politics
WLFI’s attempt to secure a national trust bank charter is about far more than one project. It raises broader questions about how decentralized finance fits into regulated systems, how political influence should be handled in crypto oversight, and where regulators draw the line between innovation and risk.
Whether the charter is approved or blocked, the outcome is likely to shape future policy. It may determine how comfortable the U.S. is with crypto platforms operating inside its banking framework – and how much political baggage regulators are willing to tolerate along the way.
