President Donald Trump filed a $5 billion lawsuit Thursday against JPMorgan Chase and CEO Jamie Dimon, claiming the bank shut down his accounts for “political and social motivations,” according to court documents.
The complaint alleges that in early 2021, after decades of banking with JPMorgan, the bank informed Trump and his businesses that it would close several accounts, following the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. However, each year many of those indicted, pleading or found guilty have their bank accounts and credit cards cancelled, making recovering from a second chance impossible.
President Donald Trump and related business entities have filed a lawsuit seeking $5 billion in damages against JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., along with its CEO, Jamie Dimon. In the complaint, the plaintiffs argue the bank abruptly ended a long-running relationship for reasons tied to politics and public pressure. They describe the dispute as part of a wider problem sometimes called “debanking,” where individuals or groups allegedly lose banking access not because of financial risk but because of their views or public controversy.
The lawsuit frames JPMorgan’s actions as more than a business decision. It claims the bank’s conduct caused ongoing financial disruption and reputational damage, and it alleges the bank took further steps beyond simply closing accounts.
According to the filing, Trump and affiliated entities maintained a large number of accounts at JPMorgan for decades. The complaint says these accounts handled major business activity, involving significant deposits and transactions over time. The plaintiffs emphasize that the relationship was substantial and long-standing, and they argue it was valuable to the bank as well.
The case presents the account closures as sudden, not the outcome of a gradual breakdown or a pattern of account problems. The plaintiffs argue that they were customers in good standing and that the termination came without a clear justification.
The complaint states that on February 19, 2021, Trump and the other plaintiffs received a letter from the bank informing them that several accounts were being closed and that the overall banking relationship would end by April 19, 2021. The filing describes this as an unexpected move and says the bank did not provide a meaningful explanation for the decision.
Those termination letters are not unusual. Most everyone who has a felony gets a nondescript notice telling them that they have a limited amount of time to close their account. Many move to other banks only to get another notice some months later. One solution is to put the assets in another family member’s name or find a small account at a community bank and just hope it remains open.
Banks provide little insight into how they came to the decision and there is really no recourse. Now Trump wants answers and the resulting litigation would at lease provide some transparency into why those with felonies are excluded from banking at major banks.
Trump’s lawsuit contends that the timing created immediate practical challenges. They argue that sixty days was not enough time to restructure complex banking arrangements, notify counterparties, and keep operations running smoothly. The lawsuit portrays the closure as disruptive in a way that goes beyond inconvenience, especially for business entities that rely on stable financial services. For the common person who is trying to pull their lives together, having their banking pulled is catastrophic.
The lawsuit also claims Trump contacted Jamie Dimon after receiving notice of the closures. According to the complaint, Dimon said he would look into it, but the plaintiffs say they never received a follow-up or resolution. The filing uses this detail to support the idea that the decision was elevated to the top of the organization and was not simply a routine operational move. However and sadly, it is far more routine than President Trump thinks.
One of the central claims in the lawsuit is that JPMorgan did more than close accounts. The complaint alleges that the bank placed Trump, his businesses, and related parties on a “blacklist” that prevented them from opening wealth management accounts. The plaintiffs say they only became aware of this blacklist recently, but they argue it has affected them for years by blocking or limiting access to financial products and services.
The complaint further alleges that the blacklist was authorized at high levels and that it was accessible to other federally regulated banks. According to the plaintiffs, that shared access made the harm broader than the loss of a single banking relationship. The lawsuit claims it effectively created a barrier that followed them into other banking discussions, making it harder to find institutions willing to provide similar services.
According to the lawsuit, the blacklist caused reputational damage that functioned like a warning label, discouraging other financial institutions from engaging with them or forcing them into worse terms than they would otherwise receive.
The complaint argues that debanking has become a public issue, especially in political and cultural flashpoints. The lawsuit claims that banks have faced criticism for closing accounts tied to political figures and advocacy groups, and it suggests that viewpoint-based banking decisions have become more common.
The filing also references recent government actions and political debate around financial access. It cites an executive order dated August 7, 2025, describing a policy position that Americans should not be denied financial services based on protected beliefs or political affiliations, and it mentions related regulatory attention by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency.
The National Association of Criminal Defense Attorneys (NACDL) conducted a study years ago about this issue finding that individuals with criminal records might not even be able to continue banking at the very institutions that have criminal convictions themselves. Four of the banks—Citicorp, JPMorgan, Barclays, and RBS—have agreed to plead guilty to conspiracy to manipulate the price of U.S. dollars and euros exchanged in the foreign currency exchange spot market and will pay criminal fines totaling $2.5 billion.
JPMorgan has stated in the past that it is committed to giving people with arrest or conviction histories a second chance by supporting their reentry into the workforce, communities. While they might hire someone with a conviction, they may not give them a bank account.
The lawsuit asserts several causes of action aimed at both JPMorgan and Dimon. One claim described in the complaint is trade libel. The plaintiffs argue that the alleged blacklist conveyed a harmful message to other banks and that it implied the plaintiffs were unfit or improper customers, damaging their reputation and limiting their ability to access services.
At the same time, the lawsuit acknowledges that bank account agreements often contain broad language allowing a bank to close accounts. The complaint cites an agreement provision stating that JPMorgan may close an account at any time for any reason or no reason. The plaintiffs respond by arguing that contract language granting broad discretion cannot be used as cover for unlawful discrimination or other wrongful conduct.
The lawsuit seeks at least $5 billion in damages from JPMorgan and also seeks damages from Dimon. The plaintiffs argue that the account closures and the alleged blacklist caused major financial harm, interfered with business operations, and triggered long-term reputational damage.
The case sets up a fight over motive, evidence, and the scope of a bank’s discretion to end relationships. If the litigation moves forward, the most important questions will likely include whether the plaintiffs can prove the alleged blacklist existed, whether it was communicated in a way that affected other banks’ decisions, and whether political motivation can be substantiated as the reason the banking relationship was terminated.
This lawsuit is about more than a disagreement between a former president and a major bank. It taps into a bigger debate about who gets access to financial services, how banks evaluate risk, and whether political pressure influences decisions that are supposed to be neutral business judgments.
For critics of debanking, the case is a high-profile example of what they say is viewpoint-based exclusion. For banks and regulators, it raises questions about institutional discretion, reputational risk management, and the line between business judgment and discriminatory conduct.
However the case unfolds, it is likely to draw attention not only because of the parties involved, but because it could have implications for anyone with a felony.
Follow me on LinkedIn or Twitter or Forbes. Check out my website or some of my other work here.
.jpg)
.jpg)
.jpg)
