JPMorgan Chase has, for the first time, publicly acknowledged closing the bank accounts of former President Donald Trump and several of his affiliated businesses in the wake of the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The admission came in a court filing this week as part of Trump’s lawsuit against the bank and its CEO, Jamie Dimon, seeking $5 billion in damages.
The lawsuit alleges that the account closures were politically motivated and disrupted Trump’s business operations. According to the filing, JPMorgan informed Trump’s entities in that accounts held within its commercial bank (CB) and private bank (PB) divisions would be closed. Until now, JPMorgan had refrained from confirming the closures in writing, typically responding hypothetically to inquiries about account termination policies, citing bank privacy regulations.
Dan Wilkening, JPMorgan’s former chief administrative officer, stated in the court document that the decision to close the accounts stemmed from concerns about maintaining a relationship with Trump following the events at the Capitol. The bank, in a letter to Trump submitted as evidence, indicated it was recommending he “find a more suitable institution with which to conduct business.”
The acknowledgment marks a significant shift in JPMorgan’s public stance on the matter. Previously, the bank maintained it does not close accounts based on political or religious affiliation, but rather when an account presents “legal or regulatory risk for the company.” This latest filing directly links the account closures to the aftermath of , a connection the bank had previously avoided explicitly stating.
Trump’s legal team has argued that the bank’s actions constituted a breach of contract and damaged his reputation. The $5 billion claim seeks to recover damages related to lost business opportunities and reputational harm. JPMorgan, however, contends that the lawsuit is “fraudulently” inflated and improperly includes claims against Dimon personally. The bank argues that the inclusion of Dimon is a deliberate attempt to draw him into the litigation without a legitimate basis.
The case centers on the practice known as “debanking,” where financial institutions terminate relationships with customers, often citing reputational or regulatory concerns. The issue has gained prominence in recent years, particularly among politically conservative figures who allege discrimination. JPMorgan’s decision to close Trump’s accounts sparked immediate criticism from the former president, who has repeatedly claimed he was unfairly targeted.
The timing of the account closures, shortly after the Capitol riot, is a key element of Trump’s argument that the decision was politically motivated. The bank’s letter, dated , explicitly states the need to end the relationship, suggesting a definitive break rather than a routine account review. This communication, now part of the court record, provides further evidence supporting Trump’s claims.
JPMorgan’s initial response to the lawsuit focused on procedural challenges, arguing that the case should be dismissed due to lack of jurisdiction and improper claims. However, the recent court filing represents a more direct engagement with the substantive allegations, acknowledging the account closures while defending the bank’s actions as prudent risk management.
The legal battle is unfolding against a backdrop of increasing scrutiny of financial institutions’ relationships with politically exposed persons (PEPs). Banks are under pressure to comply with anti-money laundering regulations and avoid facilitating illicit financial activity. The Trump case raises questions about the balance between regulatory compliance and potential political bias in banking decisions.
While JPMorgan maintains it acted within its rights to terminate the relationship, the lawsuit has brought renewed attention to the issue of debanking and its potential implications for financial inclusion and political expression. The outcome of the case could set a precedent for future disputes involving politically sensitive account closures.
The case is being heard in Florida state court, where Trump maintains his primary residence at Mar-a-Lago. The legal proceedings are expected to continue for several months, with potential for further discovery and depositions. The court will ultimately determine whether JPMorgan’s actions were justified and whether Trump is entitled to damages.
