GAO Finds Cannabis Banking’s Gap: An Account Doesn’t Mean Full Access

On December 19, 2023, Sen. Raphael Warnock signed a letter asking a question that a cannabis bank account could not answer by itself. Alongside Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Tina Smith and John Fetterman, he asked the Government Accountability Office to examine how financial institutions might address the economic damage associated with drug enforcement, including effects on the racial wealth gap. Access to finance was part of the question. Who would benefit from that access was another. (S3)

Nearly three years later, a GAO report publicly released on September 8, 2026, puts the everyday machinery of cannabis banking under examination. Its findings are more complicated than an industry locked entirely out of banks. Among 48 cannabis-business participants who answered a question about accounts, 43 said they had one. They also described closures, high fees, borrowing difficulties and payment restrictions. An account could exist without providing the dependable financial services a business needed. (S1)

The report is dated August 7, a month before its public release. Its evidence comes from interviews and focus groups involving 74 financial institutions and 51 cannabis-related businesses, alongside federal records and agency interviews. Those discussions provide examples and recurring concerns, not a representative estimate of every cannabis company’s experience. GAO explicitly says the interview and focus-group results cannot be generalized to the whole industry. (S1, S2)

That limitation matters because the most arresting figure is easy to misread. FinCEN estimated that about 1,000 banks and credit unions filed selected cannabis-related suspicious activity reports in fiscal 2024. GAO cautions that the figure does not identify how many knowingly accept cannabis businesses as ongoing customers. Some reports may concern an occasional transaction; some institutions may serve only businesses that support cannabis companies rather than cultivate or sell the product. (S1)

The underlying series shows growth from 2015 through 2019, followed by relative stability through 2024. The 2024 count was approximately 11 percent of roughly 9,000 insured depository institutions nationwide. It is therefore an older reporting snapshot, not evidence of a surge in available banking services in September 2026. A national total also cannot tell an operator whether an institution serves its state, business type or desired products. (S1)

The definition of a cannabis-related business adds another complication. GAO distinguishes plant-touching companies from ancillary firms, such as equipment suppliers and professional-service providers. Two of the five large institutions it interviewed that served the industry said they served only ancillary businesses. A bank willing to accept a law firm’s cannabis-related revenue is not necessarily willing to handle a retailer’s daily receipts. Counting both as industry access obscures a consequential difference. (S1)

Jennifer Shasky Calvery, FinCEN’s director in 2014, described the original banking guidance as a way to increase transparency and reduce the dangers of an all-cash industry. The agency did not promise ordinary retail banking without extra work. Its February 14 release described a framework for knowing the customer, reporting potential criminal activity and giving law enforcement better information. The same framework still sits at the center of the system examined by GAO. (S6, S1)

FinCEN’s guidance calls for more than checking a business license once. It describes reviewing licensing information, understanding expected business activity, monitoring transactions and adverse information, and refreshing customer records. It also sets out cannabis-related suspicious activity reporting. These are continuing tasks, so an institution’s decision to enter the market includes a staffing and systems commitment rather than a one-time account-opening decision. (S5)

Banks and credit unions described that burden to GAO directly. Participants in all five focus groups with institutions already serving cannabis businesses cited operational challenges; dedicated personnel and specialized monitoring software were recurring costs. One participant said staffing constraints prevented the institution from accepting more cannabis clients. Legal permission and commercial capacity are different things: a bank can be willing to serve the industry and still have no room for another account. (S1)

Businesses described the other side of those costs. Participants in seven of eight focus groups reported monthly or annual account fees. Two participants said their annual charges reached $100,000 or more. Those two accounts are examples, not an average fee or a bill every operator should expect. GAO also heard about weeks or months spent opening accounts and closures that sometimes arrived with little warning. (S1)

The report links account instability to problems beyond the treasury function. In seven business focus groups, at least one participant described a payroll provider closing or suspending service. Some participants turned to more manual arrangements, including paying workers in cash. That creates a practical distinction between having banking access on a particular date and maintaining the infrastructure needed to pay employees over time. (S1)

Credit was another separate gate. Participants across all eight business focus groups described expensive borrowing, and seven groups included reports of interest rates above 15 percent. Some businesses sought nontraditional lenders or private investors and described unfavorable terms. GAO does not establish a cannabis-wide average borrowing rate or a causal estimate of the premium caused by federal law. It documents the financing difficulties described by its participants. (S1)

An institution’s willingness to accept deposits therefore says little by itself about whether it will finance inventory, lend against equipment or support expansion. Participants from institutions that already bank cannabis described offering fewer or different services than they offer other clients. Some restricted international wires; others offered limited lending or none. The report’s central business lesson is the unevenness of access within a single banking relationship. (S1)

GAO found no indication that institutions had faced civil or criminal penalties solely for serving cannabis-related businesses. That is a finding about the evidence it could identify, not a guarantee against enforcement. Justice Department officials said their systems could not easily identify all relevant investigations or prosecutions. Banking regulators told investigators they had not taken action against supervised institutions solely for serving these businesses. (S1)

That distinction keeps the report from resolving the argument simply by declaring banks’ concerns unfounded. Institutions described uncertainty about federal policy and fears of adverse supervisory findings. Separately, the 2022 joint statement from federal financial regulators encourages assessment of individual customer relationships rather than categorical exclusions. It also preserves institutions’ business judgment and does not change existing anti-money-laundering requirements. Encouragement to consider an account is not an obligation to open one. (S1, S7)

There is a legislative constituency for narrower protections. The House passed the SAFE Banking Act 321-101 in April 2021. The vote demonstrates that banking legislation can attract support well beyond a party-line majority, but a House roll call is not proof that Congress enacted the proposal. GAO’s report describes federal safe-harbor protections as a possible change and examines how institutions say they might respond. (S10, S1)

Among 25 polled focus-group participants from institutions that did not serve cannabis businesses, 20 anticipated that a safe harbor would likely affect the types of cannabis businesses they would serve. But among 29 polled participants from institutions already serving the industry, 22 expected no change in the types of services offered. These are responses from selected groups, not forecasts of the number of banks that legislation would bring into the market. (S1)

Payment networks introduce another decision-maker. GAO reports that Visa and Mastercard prohibit cannabis transactions on their networks, and an organization representing the networks said those policies would not change without federal legalization. An operator could gain a bank willing to hold deposits and still lack ordinary card acceptance. The report also describes uncertainty and disruptions in alternative payment arrangements, making a payment method’s availability different from its durability. (S1)

Federal rescheduling is another change that should not be treated as a complete banking settlement. GAO discusses the April 2026 rule covering certain FDA-approved marijuana products and marijuana subject to state medical licenses, while describing other cannabis as remaining in Schedule I. Its analysis still identifies banking compliance and financial-provider policies as barriers. The existence of a scheduling change does not establish that a particular service provider has changed its rules. (S1)

Warnock’s objection to an earlier banking bill came from a different direction. In September 2023, the Georgia Democrat voted against advancing the SAFER Banking Act from committee, arguing that protections for financial institutions should be paired with broader relief for communities harmed by criminalization. His office said he supported easing federal restrictions but considered that bill inadequate on restorative justice. That is a disagreement over the design and distribution of reform, rather than opposition to every banking change. (S4)

“I don’t believe in trickle-down justice”

— Raphael Warnock, U.S. senator for Georgia, Senate Banking Committee remarks, September 2023 (S4)

The new report records concerns that reach employees as well as owners. In seven of the eight business focus groups, participants said financial institutions had rejected employees’ mortgage applications because of their cannabis employment. Other participants described distinctions between how institutions treat an owner and a wage-earning employee. These accounts help explain why the senators’ original request asked about economic participation beyond corporate bank accounts. (S1, S3)

GAO’s findings do not answer the entire racial-wealth-gap question in the 2023 letter. The report notes separate ongoing work on the evolution and economic effects of drug policies. It supplies a more limited but useful account of where financial access breaks down, and whose experiences its evidence can describe. Treating that as proof that one banking bill would repair historical disparities would run ahead of the research. (S1, S3)

Warnock and his colleagues asked who would benefit when the financial system’s doors opened. The report shows why measuring the doorway is not enough. For the operators it heard from, the practical test continues after the first deposit: whether the account stays open, payroll clears, credit is available and a customer can reliably pay. Those are outcomes that a filing count cannot establish. (S1, S3)

Keep Reading

Market Data

Florida’s Cannabis Renewal Bill Is $1.34 Million. Fino Has One Store

Florida lists 941,509 active cardholders and 779 dispensaries, even as Parallel closes growing facilities. For new entrant Fino, an August marketing proposal adds another constraint: how to reach patients while carrying the cost of a vertically integrated business.

By Cannabis Inc, Editorial Staff·8 min read

Market Data

Connecticut Collected 67% More Cannabis Tax on Flat Sales. The Math Behind It Dies Oct. 1

The state's per-milligram THC tax kept climbing as shelf prices fell 40%, pushing effective rates to 35% on some products. A flat 10.75% excise replaces it Oct. 1, at a projected cost to the state of $1.9 million a year, and operators like Fine Fettle's Ben Zachs say it can't come soon enough.

By Cannabis Inc, Editorial Staff·7 min read