•  Jonathan Gould, Trump's nominee to lead the OCC, pledges to eliminate reputational risk from bank oversight.
• The move aligns with recent conservative pushes against de-banking Gould’s statements have alarmed Senate Democrats, with Elizabeth Warren warning against regulatory rollbacks.
• Democrats also cite potential conflicts of interest tied to Gould's legal work with national banks.
• Gould also voiced support for crypto innovation, supervision reform, and tailored regulation. 

Jonathan Gould, President Donald Trump’s nominee to lead the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, made his regulatory stance clear during a tense Senate Banking Committee hearing: reputational risk should no longer be used to regulate banks. 

 “Too often, reputation risk is used as a pre-text for other motives,” Gould told lawmakers, framing the concept as a subjective tool that opens the door to regulatory overreach. 

Gould’s nomination comes amid mounting political pressure around perceived de-banking and the politicization of access to financial services. 

He pledged to “shine a spotlight” on any such practices, assuring Republican senators that he supports the OCC’s move under Acting Comptroller Rodney Hood to eliminate reputational risk from its supervisory framework.  

“Regulators have at their disposal more objective terms, including litigation risk and Bank Secrecy Act compliance,” Gould said. 

A former partner at Jones Day and an OCC veteran, Gould previously served as the agency’s chief counsel during the Trump administration.  

He has also advised the Senate Banking Committee and worked in the digital asset sector as chief legal officer for blockchain firm Bitfury.  

He told lawmakers he would prioritize depoliticizing bank regulation, improving supervisory practices, supporting economic growth, and embracing innovation. 

In his opening statement, Gould called for a regulatory philosophy that allows banks to “engage in prudent risk-taking,” warning that since the 2008 crisis, regulators have sought to eliminate risk entirely.  

“This blinkered approach to risk management has implications for the cost and availability of credit, the system’s ability to absorb shocks, and its adoption of new technologies,” he said. 

Democratic lawmakers were less than reassured. Senator Elizabeth Warren raised sharp concerns over Gould’s past tenure at the OCC and his current legal work representing large banks.  

She accused him of pushing a Wall Street-friendly agenda and questioned whether he would undermine state protections against predatory banking practices. In a letter submitted before the hearing, Warren demanded responses to over 100 questions related to his views on crypto regulation, supervisory independence, enforcement priorities, and ethical safeguards. 

Warren singled out Gould’s potential role in reviewing the proposed Capital One-Discover merger, warning that his confirmation could result in a return to “rubber-stamping” large bank deals. 

“This is especially troubling given that the application to create the largest credit card bank in the country would be sitting on your desk,” she said. 

Gould defended his approach, saying he favours tailored regulatory frameworks that better reflect individual institutions' risk profiles.  

In discussing the collapse of Silicon Valley Bank, he blamed regulators for failing to detect obvious risks. “There seems to have just been a failure to focus on the material financial risk embedded in that bank’s balance sheet and its unique business model,” Gould said, calling it a basic oversight failure. 

The hearing also featured nominees Paul Atkins for chair of the Securities and Exchange Commission and Luke Pettit for assistant secretary of the Treasury.  

Atkins, receiving more scrutiny from Democrats, pledged to prioritize digital asset regulation, stating that “ambiguous and non-existent regulations” were inhibiting market innovation. 

Gould’s potential confirmation would mark a stark shift in regulatory tone at the OCC, aligning closely with the Trump administration’s deregulatory vision.  

His views on reputational risk, digital innovation, and supervisory reform place him firmly in the camp favoring reduced regulatory intervention. Whether that will reassure, or alarm lawmakers likely depends on their side of the aisle.