Share This Article
President Donald Trump has signed an executive order asking the Federal Reserve to review whether fintech and crypto firms should be given direct access to core US payment systems.
The order, signed on May 19, directs the Fed to evaluate the legal and policy framework around Reserve Bank payment accounts and payment services for uninsured depository institutions and non-bank financial companies, including firms working with digital assets and blockchain-based services.
In plain English, this is about whether crypto firms should be able to connect more directly to the plumbing of the US financial system.
These accounts are often called master accounts. They can allow eligible institutions to access Federal Reserve payment rails without routing everything through intermediary banks. For crypto firms, that could mean faster settlement, better institutional services and less dependence on traditional banking partners.
That is why the order matters.
For years, crypto companies have complained that access to banking and payment infrastructure has been inconsistent, slow and politically sensitive. Some firms have pursued federal or state charters to improve their chances of accessing Fed services, but the process has remained difficult and highly contested.
Trump’s order does not automatically give crypto firms access. It asks the Fed to study the issue and report back within 120 days with findings, options and recommendations. The order also asks the Fed to assess whether each of the 12 regional Federal Reserve Banks has the authority to independently approve or deny access to payment accounts and services.
That point is important because the Fed system is not a single door. Regional Reserve Banks have historically played a role in account decisions, and crypto firms have sometimes found themselves caught between local Fed banks, the Board of Governors and broader political pressure.
The move comes after the Fed had already started exploring a more limited type of payment account. In December 2025, the Federal Reserve Board requested public input on a proposed “payment account” that eligible financial institutions could use for clearing and settling payments. The Fed said these accounts would be distinct from full master accounts, would not pay interest, would not provide access to Fed credit and would be subject to balance caps.
That is the key trade-off. Crypto and fintech firms want direct access to payment rails. The Fed and traditional banks want guardrails that reduce risk to the payment system.
The banking sector is likely to push back hard. Direct Fed access could reduce the role of banks as intermediaries between crypto firms and the payment system. If payment companies, stablecoin firms or exchanges can connect more directly, banks may lose some control over customer flows, settlement relationships and fee opportunities.
Supporters argue the current system is outdated. A bipartisan bill introduced in April, the Payments Access and Consumer Efficiency Act, or PACE Act, aims to let qualified payment companies access federal payment systems more directly. Rep. Young Kim said the bill was designed to help Americans send and receive money faster and with fewer fees, while Rep. Sam Liccardo said broader access could reduce payment costs for families.
That consumer angle is what makes the issue bigger than crypto. This is not just about exchanges wanting special treatment. It is part of a wider fight over who gets to build the next generation of payment infrastructure in the US.
The White House framed the executive order as part of a push to remove outdated regulations and support financial innovation. Its fact sheet said the order asks regulators to review rules, guidance and application processes that could be updated to encourage competition while maintaining safety and soundness.
Still, the risk side is obvious. If non-bank firms gain easier access to Fed rails, regulators will need to be confident they can handle compliance, cybersecurity, liquidity and operational risk. A crypto exchange failure connected more directly to core payment systems would be politically explosive.
That is why the likely outcome is not instant open access. A more realistic path is a restricted payment account model, sometimes described as a “skinny” account, where firms can clear and settle payments but do not get the full benefits of a bank account at the Fed.
For crypto, even that would be a big shift.
If stablecoin issuers, custodians or exchanges can access US payment rails more directly, it could make digital asset services feel less like a side market and more like part of the mainstream financial system. It could also make stablecoins more useful for payments, treasury operations and institutional settlement.
The order is not a final rule, but it is another sign that Washington’s crypto debate has moved on. The question is no longer whether digital assets should touch the banking system. The question is how much access they should get, and who gets to control the gate.