Listen to the article
Former President Donald Trump has filed a $5 billion lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase and its CEO Jamie Dimon, claiming the banking giant terminated his accounts for political reasons shortly after he left office in 2021.
Filed in Miami-Dade County court in Florida, the lawsuit alleges JPMorgan abruptly closed multiple Trump accounts in February 2021, providing just 60 days’ notice without explanation. According to court documents, this action cut Trump and his businesses off from millions of dollars, disrupted operations, and forced them to urgently establish banking relationships elsewhere.
“JPMC debanked (Trump and his businesses) because it believed that the political tide at the moment favored doing so,” the lawsuit states.
Trump claims he attempted to address the issue directly with Dimon, who allegedly assured the former president he would investigate the situation but never followed up. The lawsuit further alleges JPMorgan placed Trump and his companies on a reputational “blacklist” used by financial institutions to prevent clients from opening new accounts.
JPMorgan Chase has responded to the allegations with a brief statement, saying the company believes the lawsuit “has no merit.”
The legal action comes amid growing tensions between Trump and Wall Street. Recently, Trump proposed capping credit card interest rates at 10% to reduce consumer costs—a move that would significantly impact JPMorgan Chase, one of the nation’s largest credit card issuers. A bank official reportedly told media outlets that JPMorgan would fight any efforts to implement such a rate cap. Banking executives have also expressed concern over Trump’s criticism of Federal Reserve independence.
“Debanking,” the practice of financial institutions closing customer accounts or refusing services, has become increasingly politicized in recent years. Conservative politicians have argued that banks discriminate against them and their affiliated interests. The issue first gained national attention when conservatives accused the Obama administration of pressuring banks to stop serving gun stores and payday lenders under an initiative called “Operation Choke Point.”
Trump and other conservative figures have alleged that banks terminated their accounts after the January 6, 2021 Capitol attack, often citing “reputational risk” as justification. Since returning to office, Trump’s banking regulators have moved to prevent financial institutions from using “reputational risk” as grounds for denying customer service.
“JPMC’s conduct is a key indicator of a systemic, subversive industry practice that aims to coerce the public to shift and re-align their political views,” Trump’s lawyers wrote in the lawsuit.
The legal complaint accuses the bank of trade libel and alleges that Dimon personally violated Florida’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act.
In its response, JPMorgan expressed regret over Trump’s decision to sue but maintained it did not close the accounts for political reasons. “JPMC does not close accounts for political or religious reasons,” a bank spokesperson stated. “We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company.”
This isn’t Trump’s first legal action against a major financial institution over alleged “debanking.” The Trump Organization filed a similar lawsuit against Capital One in March 2025, which remains active in the court system.
The case highlights the increasingly complex relationship between politics and the financial sector, with both sides positioning themselves for what could be a protracted legal battle between one of America’s most prominent political figures and one of its largest financial institutions.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
9 Comments
Interesting development. I’d like to hear more about the specifics of the allegations and the potential implications for the banking industry. It’s a complex issue that likely involves political as well as legal considerations.
Indeed, the lawsuit raises important questions about the role of banks in the political landscape and their ability to deny service based on ideological grounds. The outcome could set a precedent.
It’s always concerning to see allegations of political bias in the financial system. While I don’t have strong views on this particular case, I hope the facts will be carefully examined and justice served, whatever the outcome.
Well said. These types of cases can be highly divisive, so it’s important to maintain objectivity and focus on the legal merits rather than political leanings.
This seems like a high-stakes case that could have broader ramifications for how financial institutions handle accounts of politically controversial figures. I’m curious to see how the courts will interpret the bank’s actions.
Absolutely. The implications go beyond just this specific case and touch on the delicate balance between corporate autonomy and political neutrality in the banking sector.
This lawsuit raises important questions about the role of banks in the political sphere. While I don’t have a strong opinion on the merits, I hope the legal process will shed light on the appropriate balance between a bank’s business interests and its obligations to customers.
I’ll be following this case with interest. The ability of banks to terminate accounts for political reasons is a complex issue with significant implications. I hope the court can provide clarity on the boundaries of acceptable behavior in this domain.
Agreed. This case could set an important precedent on the limits of a bank’s discretion when it comes to managing high-profile client accounts.