On Monday, the Federal Reserve announced that it will no longer consider the controversial metric of “reputational risk” when assessing financial institutions. Lawmakers praised the decision as a welcome move that should discourage the recent pattern of banks shutting down the accounts of companies in politically disfavored sectors such as gun sellers, oil companies, and Christian ministries, which critics say amounted to unfair discrimination against conservatives.

As noted by Reuters, the Fed stated that “it was removing references to that [reputational] risk in its supervisory manuals and other documents, and directing examiners to focus on specific financial risks. The Fed had defined reputational risk as the potential for negative publicity to hurt a bank’s business or lead to costly litigation.”

Ever since the Obama administration, observers, companies, and Republican officials have been pointing to a pattern of some of the largest U.S. financial institutions canceling the accounts of (or “debanking”) conservative companies due to their “reputational risk.” Banks have claimed that federal regulators “required them to consider reputational risks posed by their customers, including negative press about companies” and that they “weigh risks when deciding who to do business with and limit ties with companies for financial, legal and reputational reasons.”

As Rep. Dan Meuser (R-Pa.) noted during a recent House Oversight hearing, “Beginning in 2013, Obama’s Department of Justice enlisted bank regulators in the first iteration of Operation Choke Point … [which] targeted gun manufacturers, payday loan companies, our energy industry, and other businesses in legal industries that were ‘disfavored’ by the Obama administration. Their plan was straightforward — use the prudential regulators’ authority to threaten supervisory action against banks who chose to provide services to these industries.”

Republican officials say that the Biden administration continued the operation via Treasury Department letters to banks claiming that debanking practices were necessary for “national security.” Financial behemoths like Bank of America apparently fell in line with the guidance by denying banking services to Christian-based ministries as well as gun and fossil fuel companies, causing 15 attorneys general to demand that the institution halt the practice in April of last year.

But the Fed’s latest guidance may be a signal that the tide is turning, particularly amid a recent pattern of banks trying to reassure Republican lawmakers that they are not discriminating against conservative companies. As reported by The Wall Street Journal on Tuesday, “Representatives from JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Wells Fargo and other big banks met in recent weeks with officials in states including Texas and Oklahoma to defend against allegations that they refuse to do business with industries such as gun manufacturing and fossil-fuel extraction.”

WSJ further related that “[t]he Trump administration is considering an executive order on ‘debanking,’ according to people familiar with the matter.”

Lawmakers like Rep. Marlin Stutzman (R-Ind.) are applauding the Federal Reserve’s move to do away with regulations that can be used as a debanking tool.

“It’s a good move,” he asserted during “Washington Watch with Tony Perkins” Wednesday. “… We hardly ever see banks that have decided not to bank a particular industry on the Left. [I]t’s the gun owner shops that have a difficult time getting banks to bank them. There [are] also the fossil fuels in the energy sector. You’ve got this whole ESG that was running around for some time and is still there. But environmental, social, and governance — it’s government’s way of controlling the economy on that social level because they don’t like fossil fuels or they don’t like the Second Amendment. … So this is a good move to make sure that we, as citizens, are protected. Now we need to keep track of those banks that do this, and I think the private sector, the free market can help monitor that as well.”

The congressman expressed further support for a potential executive order on the issue from the Trump administration. “[I]f President Trump … does the executive order, I’d be fine with that as well because I think that’s what we’re all tired of in America is this woke agenda that has been forced on us by Washington, D.C. and, of course, accelerated by the Biden administration. [W]e’re still dealing with the ramifications of that.”

“[T]hese agencies are political. They’re deeply entrenched,” Stutzman added. “I had dinner one time with Justice [Antonin] Scalia, and he said, ‘Guys, don’t fool yourselves that you think that the Supreme Court justices aren’t political. They are. They all go to the same cocktail parties together, and they like to talk politics.’ So even in our institutions that are supposed to be nonpartisan, non-political, they are. And so hopefully this is a sign that they’re watching Trump’s lead and that Trump will lean into these issues if he has to.”