Trump Files Massive $5 Billion Lawsuit Against JPMorgan Chase Over Account Closures
Former President Donald Trump has initiated a high-stakes legal battle against banking behemoth JPMorgan Chase and its chief executive, Jamie Dimon. The lawsuit, seeking a staggering $5 billion in damages, was formally filed in the Miami-Dade County court in Florida on Thursday. The core allegation centers on claims that the financial institution terminated banking services to Trump and his various business entities for explicitly political motivations following his departure from the White House in January 2021.
Allegations of Abrupt Account Termination and Political Motive
The legal complaint asserts that JPMorgan Chase abruptly closed multiple accounts held by Trump and his organizations in February 2021, providing only a 60-day notice without offering any substantive explanation. According to the lawsuit, this action effectively severed the former president and his businesses from access to millions of dollars, causing significant operational disruption and forcing an urgent scramble to establish new banking relationships elsewhere.
The filing explicitly states, "JPMC debanked (Trump and his businesses) because it believed that the political tide at the moment favored doing so." This accusation frames the account closures not as a routine business decision, but as a calculated move influenced by the political climate.
Claims of Personal Appeals and a Corporate "Blacklist"
Further details in the lawsuit reveal that Trump personally attempted to address the issue with CEO Jamie Dimon after the bank initiated the account closures. The former president alleges that Dimon assured him he would investigate the matter, but subsequently failed to follow up. The legal team for Trump also contends that JPMorgan placed him and his companies on a reputational "blacklist"—a tool allegedly used by JPMorgan and other financial institutions to prevent clients from opening future accounts.
Trump's attorneys argue this practice is indicative of a broader, systemic issue within the banking industry. "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," they wrote in the court documents.
Legal Grounds and Bank's Response
The lawsuit levels serious accusations against the bank and its leader. Trump is accusing JPMorgan Chase of trade libel and alleges that Jamie Dimon personally violated Florida's Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act. In a swift response, JPMorgan issued a statement firmly rejecting the suit's merits.
"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." The bank expressed regret over the lawsuit but stood by its decision-making process.
Broader Context of "Debanking" and Political Tensions
This lawsuit emerges against a backdrop of heightened friction between the Trump administration and Wall Street. Just last week, Trump threatened legal action against JPMorgan Chase while simultaneously proposing a cap on credit card interest rates at 10% to alleviate consumer costs. Chase, as one of the nation's largest credit card issuers, has publicly stated it would oppose any legislative move to implement such a cap.
The concept of "debanking"—where a bank ceases services for a customer—has evolved from a niche financial concern into a politically charged national debate. Conservative figures have long argued that banks engage in discriminatory practices against them. The issue gained prominence during the Obama administration with controversies like "Operation Choke Point," and has been reignited following the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack, with claims that banks cite "reputational risk" to justify cutting off services.
Since returning to office, the Trump administration's banking regulators have taken steps to prohibit financial institutions from using reputational risk as a sole criterion for denying customer services, highlighting the ongoing political and regulatory battle surrounding this practice.
