Stripe’s stablecoin infrastructure subsidiary Bridge has moved to restrict support for a set of high-risk geographies it previously categorized as “controlled,” a shift that comes as the company advances a significant regulatory milestone: conditional approval from the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) to establish a national trust bank.
From Controlled to Prohibited
Historic snapshots of Bridge’s website show that, as recently as late 2025, the firm listed several jurisdictions — including Afghanistan, Belarus, the Gaza Strip, Guinea-Bissau, Iraq, Lebanon, Libya, Nicaragua, Russia, Somalia, South Sudan, Sudan, Venezuela, the West Bank, and Yemen — under a “controlled” classification.
In Bridge’s terminology at that time, this category suggested conditional or limited support through specially approved programs.
In the company’s most recent public country list, however, these same jurisdictions are now designated as prohibited. Bridge states that it will not facilitate services in these areas except in extraordinary situations — a term the company has not publicly defined.
The change effectively removes them from Bridge’s active or conditionally supported markets.
Stripe and Bridge have indicated that geographic and risk policies are periodically updated to align with evolving compliance standards and internal risk assessments. According to the company, these updates are part of an ongoing evaluation process intended to ensure compliance with applicable laws and regulatory expectations.
Context: OCC Trust Charter Momentum
The timing of these policy adjustments coincides with Bridge’s recent conditional approval from the U.S. Comptroller of the Currency to organize a federally chartered National Trust Bank.
If final approval is granted, the charter would allow Bridge to offer regulated stablecoin services — including issuance, digital asset custody, and reserve management — under direct federal supervision.
The move positions Bridge among a limited group of stablecoin infrastructure providers seeking formal integration into the U.S. banking framework.
Bridge’s cofounders have publicly described stablecoins as tools that enable faster and cheaper cross-border payments than traditional financial systems, while expanding access to U.S. dollar-denominated savings and spending.
Regulatory and Compliance Implications
The shift away from high-risk jurisdictions comes amid heightened scrutiny of stablecoin infrastructure from regulators and policy analysts.
Concerns surrounding anti-money-laundering controls, sanctions compliance, and the potential misuse of digital dollars in sanctioned or conflict-affected regions have intensified in recent years.
Earlier reports in 2026 suggested that Bridge’s technology had been used by a Venezuelan crypto application in ways that prompted questions about sanctions exposure. Observers noted that Bridge subsequently prohibited services to Venezuela and other high-risk regions, potentially as part of broader compliance recalibration.
While Stripe has not publicly detailed specific compliance cases, the updated geographic restrictions reflect a tightening of risk posture consistent with regulated banking expectations.
What This Could Signal
Bridge’s evolving geographic policy may serve multiple strategic objectives:
- Regulatory alignment: Narrowing jurisdictional coverage positions Bridge as a more compliance-focused entity ahead of final federal trust bank authorization.
- Risk containment: Excluding high-risk regions reduces exposure to sanctions enforcement actions, financial crime risks, and complex cross-border compliance burdens.
- Market signaling: A conservative support footprint may reassure regulators and institutional partners that Bridge intends to operate within mainstream financial guardrails rather than high-risk peripheries.
Conclusion
As global regulators refine frameworks for stablecoins and digital assets, Bridge’s geographic policy adjustments illustrate how fintech firms recalibrate operational risk when transitioning from growth-stage infrastructure to regulated financial institution.
The tightening of jurisdictional exposure may reflect not retreat — but maturation.
