New York/Washington: JPMorgan Chase has, for the first time, formally acknowledged in a court filing that it closed the bank accounts of Donald Trump and his business entities in the aftermath of the January 6, 2021 US Capitol attack. The admission comes as part of Trump’s $5 billion lawsuit against the bank and marks a significant development in the long-running dispute over alleged “debanking” and political discrimination in the financial system.
In a sworn statement submitted to the court, the bank’s former chief administrative officer said that Trump-linked private and commercial banking accounts were notified of closure in February 2021. Until now, JPMorgan had publicly referred only to general policies and client confidentiality norms, declining to confirm whether it had taken action against any specific customer.
Allegations of political bias
Trump has alleged in his lawsuit that the accounts were terminated for political reasons, disrupting his business operations and causing substantial financial and reputational harm. He has further claimed that he and his companies were placed on an informal “blacklist,” making it difficult to obtain banking services from other financial institutions.
JPMorgan has responded in court that it will address the blacklist allegation once it is clearly defined. The bank has described the lawsuit as without merit and said it acted within its risk management framework and contractual rights, while expressing regret that the dispute has escalated into litigation.
Certified Cyber Crime Investigator Course Launched by Centre for Police Technology
Jurisdictional battle underway
The case was originally filed in a Florida state court, where Trump currently resides. JPMorgan is seeking to move the matter to federal court and shift the venue to New York, arguing that the accounts in question were maintained there and that Trump’s primary business dealings were conducted in that jurisdiction.
Trump’s legal team has claimed that efforts were made to raise the issue directly with the bank’s leadership before the closures took effect, but no reconsideration followed. The bank has declined to comment beyond its formal legal filings.
‘Debanking’ debate gains traction
The dispute has become a focal point in the broader US debate over “debanking,” a term used when financial institutions close accounts or deny services to clients. In recent years, the issue has taken on political overtones, with some leaders arguing that banks use “reputational risk” to make ideologically driven decisions, while the banking industry maintains that such actions are part of regulatory compliance and risk control.
Since returning to office, Trump’s administration has signalled to regulators that reliance solely on reputational risk as a basis for denying banking services should be reviewed. The move has sparked fresh discussions on how banks assess clients, manage risk and balance regulatory obligations with claims of political neutrality.
Not the first legal confrontation
This is not the first time Trump has pursued legal action against a financial institution over alleged debanking. In 2025, his business organisation filed a similar lawsuit against a major credit card company, a case that remains ongoing. The repeated litigation suggests that the dispute extends beyond a single bank and reflects wider tensions between political figures and the financial sector.
Implications for the banking industry
Legal experts say JPMorgan’s written confirmation that the accounts were closed could influence the trajectory of the case, although the final outcome will depend on whether the court finds that the bank acted within its contractual and risk-management rights. If the matter proceeds to full trial, it could set an important precedent for how and when banks may terminate client relationships and what level of transparency is required.
For now, the proceedings are focused on jurisdiction and venue, after which the substantive claims will be examined. Regulators, financial institutions and political observers are closely watching the case, as it could shape future standards governing client selection, account closures and disclosure obligations.
The outcome is expected to have lasting implications for the intersection of banking policy, political neutrality and corporate risk management in the United States.
