SUPPORTING STATEMENT: Financial institutions are essential pillars of the marketplace. Because of their pivotal role in America’s economy, many federal and state laws already prohibit them from discriminating against customers. The UN Declaration of Human Rights recognizes that “everyone has the right to freedom of thought, conscience, and religion.”1 These guarantees are an important part of protecting every American’s right to free speech and free exercise of religion.

As shareholders of Truist, we believe it is essential for the company to provide financial services on an equal basis without regard to race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or social, political, or religious views.

We are concerned with recent evidence of religious and political discrimination against customers by financial services companies, as seen in recent examples2 and the 2022 Statement on Debanking and Free Speech.3

Truist’s charitable giving policy4 excludes faith-based organizations, from churches to other religious organizations. As noted in the 2023 Viewpoint Diversity Score Business lndex,5 “charitable giving policies [ought not] bar nonprofits from receiving support simply because of their religious status.”

Furthermore, as per the 1792 Exchange’s report6 on Truist (listing the bank as ‘High Risk’), Truist “does not provide its employees with protections against viewpoint discrimination.” This lack of protection raises serious concerns as to the possibility of politicized debanking, concerns which Truist’s shareholders have a right to have assuaged.

As per the Index, almost two-thirds of major financial institutions feature overly vague language regarding what can trigger debanking of a client. As matters currently stand, with nonspecific language of risk (JP Morgan Chase), hate (Visa), and bigotry (Truist), the majority of prominent financial institutions have no avenue to rectify any serious concerns about bias.

And concerns are growing. In early 2023, shareholders called for Chase, Mastercard, PayPal, Capital One, and Charles Schwab to assess whether they have adequate safeguards to prevent politicized de-banking.7 Nineteen state attorneys general and fourteen state financial officers specifically called out Chase for their de-banking of a non-profit committed to advancing religious freedom and demanded action from the company to show good faith in addressing these widespread concerns.8 In absence of clearer protocols, Truist could be next.

Increased transparency in debanking is a critical element of Truist’s business purpose–the responsibility to provide value for shareholders must take priority over the kind of activist demands that ultimately jeopardize a business’ profit models and erode shareholder trust.

Filed by David Bahnsen.