JPMorgan Under Fire: Trump Claims CEO Used ‘Woke’ Agenda To Freeze His Accounts

U.S. President Donald Trump has sued JPMorgan Chase and CEO Jamie Dimon for $5 billion, alleging the bank closed several of Trump's personal and business accounts to advance a political agenda, in what Trump claims is a case of debanking. The lawsuit was filed in a Florida state court in Miami-Dade County on Thursday.

The complaint accuses JPMorgan, the largest U.S. lender, of breaching its own internal standards by targeting Trump to ride the "political tide." Trump alleges the bank treated Trump and related hospitality businesses differently from other customers, and that the moves were intended to punish Trump’s political positions and public profile.

Trump debanking lawsuit centres on alleged blacklist by JPMorgan

Trump claims JPMorgan acted against its principles when it shut accounts tied to the Trump Organization and various hospitality ventures. The lawsuit further alleges that Dimon directed staff to compile a malicious "blacklist" warning other banks against providing services to Trump, Trump family members and Trump-linked companies, thereby amplifying the impact of any account closures.

The filing states that this alleged warning system harmed Trump beyond account loss. According to the lawsuit, "Plaintiffs also suffered extensive reputational harm by being forced to reach out to other financial institutions in an effort to move their funds and accounts, making it clear that they had been debanked," describing the process as both costly and embarrassing.

JPMorgan response and defence in Trump debanking lawsuit

JPMorgan has rejected the accusations and said it does not terminate banking relationships for political or religious reasons. The bank said, "While we regret President Trump has sued us, we believe the suit has no merit," and added, "We respect the President's right to sue us and our right to defend ourselves."

The bank said account closures occur when customers present compliance or regulatory concerns. It stated that accounts are sometimes shut if they pose legal or supervisory risk. JPMorgan said, "We regret having to do so but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to do so," stressing that such decisions apply across clients and sectors.

Industry reaction and policy clash behind Trump debanking lawsuit

Trump has recently criticised other major banks as well, including Bank of America, making similar debanking allegations and calling for tougher limits on lending terms. Trump urged a nationwide 10% ceiling on credit card interest rates, arguing that high borrowing costs harm consumers and should be reined in through policy and legislation.

Dimon, who has led JPMorgan for around two decades, responded to those proposals at the World Economic Forum on Wednesday. Dimon argued that strict caps would restrict borrowing options for many users and called the idea an "economic disaster." Many banking executives share that view, even while welcoming the Trump administration’s broader push for deregulation.

Regulatory backdrop and political friction around Trump debanking lawsuit

Claims of debanking have grown louder during Trump's second term in the White House, especially among conservatives who say lenders have discriminated against industries such as firearms and fossil fuels. Trump has accused some institutions of refusing to deal with Trump and other conservatives, allegations that banks deny, saying client reviews focus on risk, not ideology.

Pressure on banks has coincided with scrutiny from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. In December, the regulator reported that the nine largest U.S. banks limited or withdrew services from several sectors between 2020 and 2023 as part of what it described as a wider debanking push, though it did not name specific institutions or individual cases.

Wider debanking scrutiny linked to Trump debanking lawsuit

The Comptroller’s report said some banks either refused services or imposed extra checks on certain sectors. Industries affected included oil and gas producers, cryptocurrency firms, tobacco and e-cigarette manufacturers, and firearm companies. Many lenders had publicly linked such restrictions to environmental, social and governance goals, prompting a backlash from critics who view those standards as political.

The regulator said that several banks have since scaled back these practices, while supervisors continue reviewing thousands of customer complaints tied to alleged debanking. Last year, JPMorgan said it was working with government agencies and other entities examining its account policies, amid the Trump administration’s campaign against what it calls politically driven financial exclusion.

Policy shifts and related cases around Trump debanking lawsuit

U.S. regulators have also been reassessing their own role. Last year, federal banking agencies said they would no longer evaluate institutions based on so-called reputational risk, which had allowed supervisors to pressure banks over activities that were legal but might attract negative attention or costly lawsuits. Banks argued that the standard was vague and granted wide discretion to examiners.

The industry has further urged updates to anti-money laundering rules. Lenders say current rules sometimes force them to close suspicious accounts without providing customers any explanation, contributing to public claims of debanking. At the same time, banks insist they must follow legal obligations on financial crime, even when the decisions appear opaque to the people affected.

Other lenders are also facing related litigation. Capital One Financial has asked a court to dismiss a separate lawsuit filed last March by several Trump plaintiffs, including Eric Trump, involving similar allegations of debanking. That case remains pending. JPMorgan shares ended Thursday 0.5% higher, suggesting investors are still assessing the potential impact of Trump’s new case.

The White House passed questions about the JPMorgan lawsuit to Trump’s private lawyer, who did not immediately comment. As the $5 billion claim proceeds, it sits at the intersection of Trump’s broader conflict with large banks, regulatory reviews of debanking, and shifting rules on supervision, leaving courts and regulators to determine how far political bias may have influenced banking decisions.