JPMorgan confirms it once shut down Trump's bank accounts as $5 billion debanking lawsuit advances

JPMorgan Chase has finally confirmed in writing what President Trump has been saying for years: the nation's largest bank closed his accounts in the political fallout after January 6, 2021. The confirmation came in a court filing this week, forced into the open by Trump's $5 billion lawsuit against the bank and its CEO, Jamie Dimon.

Dan Wilkening, JPMorgan's chief administrative officer for global banking, stated in the filing that in February 2021, the bank informed Trump and several of his hospitality companies that certain accounts would be closed. Copies of formal letters included in the filing are dated February 19, 2021, just six weeks after the Capitol breach.

Until this filing, JPMorgan had never admitted that it closed the president's accounts. The bank would only speak in hypotheticals about when and why it closes accounts, citing bank privacy laws. That wall of silence crumbled under the weight of a lawsuit the bank now has to answer in court.

The letters speak for themselves

The court filing included the actual letters JPMorgan sent to Trump and his companies, reported The Hill. One, addressed to Jeffrey McConney of The Trump Corporation, was blunt:

"JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. ('we') has decided to close its banking relationship with The Trump Corporation and its affiliated entities."

A separate letter addressed directly to Trump deployed softer corporate language but carried the same message:

"We may determine that a client's interests are no longer served by maintaining a relationship. ... With that in mind, this letter is to respectfully inform you that we will need to end our current relationship."

Trump and his companies were given until April 19, 2021, to move hundreds of millions of dollars out of the bank before the accounts were officially shuttered. According to Wilkening, JPMorgan worked with Trump's team to transfer the funds to other institutions under its standard account agreements.

Neither letter provided a specific reason for the closures.

A decades-long relationship ended without explanation

Trump's attorneys noted in an earlier filing that the president had been a JPMorgan customer for decades and that he and his affiliated entities transacted hundreds of millions of dollars through the bank. That relationship evaporated in the span of a few weeks, with no stated cause beyond boilerplate corporate pleasantries about "interests" no longer being "served."

The lawsuit, filed in Miami state court, accuses JPMorgan and Dimon of trade libel, violating Florida's unfair and deceptive trade practices act, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and seeks declaratory relief. Trump's legal team is demanding a jury trial.

His attorneys allege the accounts were "unlawfully closed due to political discrimination" and that Trump was placed on a "blacklist." They also claim Bank of America later refused to accept large deposits when Trump attempted to bank elsewhere, suggesting a coordinated pattern of financial exclusion.

Trump's lawyers laid out the broader stakes in the initial complaint:

"In addition to the considerable financial and reputational harm that Plaintiffs and their affiliated entities suffered, JPMC's reckless decision is leading a growing trend by financial institutions in the United States of America to cut off a consumer's access to banking services if their political views contradict with those of the financial institution."

That's not just a legal argument. It's a description of a system that millions of Americans now recognize as real.

JPMorgan's defense: blame the regulators

JPMorgan maintains the lawsuit "has no merit." In a statement to FOX Business, the bank offered a carefully constructed response:

"JPMC does not close accounts for political or religious reasons. We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company. We regret having to do so but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to this."

The bank added that it has been "asking both this Administration and prior administrations to change the rules and regulations that put us in this position" and that it supports "the Administration's efforts to prevent the weaponization of the banking sector."

Read that again carefully. JPMorgan is simultaneously claiming it didn't debank Trump for political reasons while also saying the regulatory framework forced its hand and that it wants the current administration to fix the rules that caused this. The bank wants credit for supporting reform of a system it claims didn't produce the outcome everyone can plainly see it produced.

Dimon himself testified on Capitol Hill in February 2025 that JPMorgan doesn't "debank people because of political or religious affiliations." But he also acknowledged the regulatory burden:

"The rules and requirements are so onerous, and it does cause people to be debanked in my opinion, should not be debated."

So the CEO of America's largest bank concedes the system causes debanking. His bank debanked a sitting president's accounts six weeks after a politically charged event. But the bank insists politics had nothing to do with it.

The fine print doesn't settle the question

JPMorgan shared its account agreements with the court, which reveal the bank's broad latitude over customer relationships. Under those agreements, JPMorgan can close accounts with or without cause, provided it gives at least 30 days' written notice. The agreements also authorize closure for specific reasons:

• Breach of contract
• Financial impairment or insolvency
• Legal or regulatory requirements
• Activities that the bank in "good faith" believes violate its policies

JPMorgan's policies are built around regulatory compliance and risk management, including anti-money laundering, anti-terrorism, government sanctions, and unlawful transactions. The bank reserves the right to refuse transactions, freeze funds, or close accounts without further notice if it determines an activity conflicts with its policies.

None of which explains why the president of the United States and his business entities, a customer for decades transacting hundreds of millions of dollars, suddenly became a compliance risk in February 2021 and not a moment before.

Trump's attorneys believe they know the answer. They wrote that they are "confident that JPMC's unilateral decision came about as a result of political and social motivations, and JPMC's unsubstantiated, 'woke' beliefs that it needed to distance itself from President Trump and his conservative political views."

A pattern, not an isolated incident

This isn't the only debanking lawsuit Trump has pursued. The Trump Organization also sued Capital One in 2025, alleging the bank "unjustifiably" terminated more than 300 of its accounts and accounts belonging to Trump family members in 2021. A Capital One spokesperson responded with what is becoming a familiar refrain: "Capital One has not and does not close customer accounts for political reasons."

Two of America's largest financial institutions. Hundreds of accounts. Both closed in 2021. Both banks deny politics played any role. Both expect you to believe that.

JPMorgan is now seeking to move the case from the Florida state court to the federal court in New York, arguing that the bank accounts were located and managed there. It's a procedural maneuver, but the substance of the case remains unchanged: a bank that served a client for decades severed the relationship weeks after a politically charged event, gave no reason, and then spent five years refusing to acknowledge it happened at all.

Now that acknowledgment is on the record. The question a jury may eventually answer is whether "legal or regulatory risk" is a reason or just a euphemism.