Click here: to donate by Credit Card
Or here: to donate by PayPal
Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Thank you very much and God bless you.
Posted on 02/22/2026 5:40:26 PM PST by SeekAndFind
A growing legal battle between President Donald Trump and one of America’s most powerful financial institutions is putting a spotlight on a controversial issue that could affect businesses, investors, and everyday Americans alike: debanking.
JPMorgan Chase has now formally acknowledged that it ended its banking relationship with Donald Trump and several Trump-affiliated businesses shortly after the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot. The disclosure came as part of a major lawsuit filed by Trump seeking $5 billion in damages, alleging political discrimination and reputational harm.
The case is quickly evolving into something far bigger than a dispute between a bank and a former customer. It is becoming a test of how much power large financial institutions hold over access to the U.S. banking system, and whether political views can indirectly influence that access.
Here is what happened, why it matters, and what it could mean going forward.
In a recent court filing, a senior JPMorgan executive confirmed that the bank notified Trump and several of his business entities in February 2021 that certain accounts would be closed. Formal letters dated February 19, 2021 were sent to both Trump personally and to Trump Organization entities.
One letter stated:
“JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (‘we’) has decided to close its banking relationship with The Trump Corporation and its affiliated entities.”
Another letter to Trump read:
“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.”
According to JPMorgan, the closures were carried out under standard account agreement procedures, and the bank worked with Trump’s businesses to transfer remaining funds to other institutions.
However, Trump’s legal team argues the closures were politically motivated and unlawful.
Trump’s lawsuit accuses JPMorgan and CEO Jamie Dimon of targeting him for political reasons following the events of January 6. The complaint claims the bank effectively placed Trump on a financial “blacklist” and damaged his ability to conduct business.
According to court filings, Trump had been a JPMorgan client for decades and conducted hundreds of millions of dollars in transactions through the bank. His attorneys argue the termination was not based on financial risk but rather on political pressure and reputational concerns.
The lawsuit alleges:
Trump’s legal team wrote that the decision caused “considerable financial and reputational harm” and warned it reflects a broader trend in which financial institutions restrict access to banking based on ideology.
JPMorgan has not admitted wrongdoing and is expected to argue that the closures were fully permitted under standard banking agreements.
Like most large banks, JPMorgan’s customer contracts allow either party to terminate a relationship, often with written notice and sometimes without providing a specific reason. The agreements also allow closures for compliance, legal, regulatory, or reputational risk.
Large banks operate under strict federal oversight, including:
Financial institutions frequently cite these obligations when ending client relationships, even in cases involving high-profile customers.
In February 2025, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon addressed Congress on the broader issue of debanking and denied that political ideology drives account closures.
“We don’t debank people because of political or religious affiliations,” Dimon said on Capitol Hill. “But there are a lot of things that can be fixed. We should fix them. The rules and requirements are so onerous, and it does cause people to be debanked in my opinion, should not be debated.”
Dimon’s comments suggest the issue may be less about politics and more about regulatory pressure, risk management, and reputational exposure.
Still, critics argue large banks have enormous discretion, and transparency is often limited when accounts are closed.
This is not Trump’s only dispute with major banks. In 2025, the Trump Organization also filed suit against Capital One, claiming the bank terminated more than 300 Trump-related accounts in 2021 without justification.
Capital One responded publicly:
“Capital One has not and does not close customer accounts for political reasons.”
Taken together, the lawsuits are raising broader questions about whether high-profile individuals or controversial figures face higher risk of losing access to the financial system.
Regardless of political views, the outcome of this lawsuit could have major implications for:
If courts limit banks’ ability to terminate accounts without clear justification, it could reshape customer protections nationwide.
Large banks may be forced to clarify how reputational and political risk factors influence account decisions.
Lawmakers could use the case to push new rules governing when banks can close accounts.
The issue is expanding beyond politics into industries like crypto, firearms, energy, and other sectors that have faced banking access challenges.
Over the past decade, critics across the political spectrum have warned about the growing influence of large financial institutions over economic participation.
Banks do not just store money. They control:
When a bank ends a relationship, it can severely disrupt an individual or company’s ability to operate.
This is why the Trump-JPMorgan case is drawing national attention far beyond partisan politics.
Investors should not dismiss this case as purely political drama. It could shape financial industry rules in meaningful ways.
Key developments to monitor:
If regulatory changes emerge, they could influence the banking sector, fintech firms, and industries frequently labeled “high risk.”
|
|
Click here: to donate by Credit Card Or here: to donate by PayPal Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794 Thank you very much and God bless you. |
Tour guide at the Trump Presidential Library....And this wing is brought to you by CBS, this wing is brought to you by JP Morgan.....
unless PDJT has been bouncing a lot of cheques, (smiles),
this sort of “debanking” krap should NOT be permitted !
(and why a bank would want to lose patronage, and especially that of a multi-billionaire business person -— it will be very interesting to see some shareholder lawsuits against the bank officers responsible for dumping PDJT’s accounts...)
Well it's awfully nice of them to do that for Trump's interests. < /S>
If I were Trump and the bank asked the price to settle out of court I’d have my lawyer simply say, “Hello Junior Partner it sure is nice to own 51% of this bank!” And I’d say the same thing if Trump were as liberal as Gavin Newsom, Bernie Sanders, or AOC.
TDS costs $5 billion. Spread it around.
JP Morgan board couldn’t read the room if they were the only ones there. Didn’t count on President Trump in 2024. I hope he gets every buck of his suit.
yahoonews.com
Kate Briquelet
Wed, February 15, 2023
Disney Princesses and Hot Tubs: JPMorgan Executive’s Creepy Texts to Epstein
Former JPMorgan executive Jes Staley and sex-trafficker Jeffrey Epstein exchanged numerous emails that included photos of women in suggestive poses and Staley’s praise for the sex offender, according to a newly unredacted court filing from the U.S. Virgin Islands. In one message, Staley even told Epstein, “I owe you much.” The disturbing revelations arrived on Wednesday, after the territory’s attorney general filed yet another version of its lawsuit against JPMorgan—this time, with fewer redactions than its original. The complaint, filed in Manhattan federal court, paints a picture of a close bond between Staley and Epstein, who made cryptic references to Disney Princesses in their correspondence. (In 2021, the Financial Times reported that U.S. regulators were reviewing around 1,200 emails between the pair, from 2008 to 2012.)
The Virgin Islands AG sued JPMorgan last December, claiming the investment bank “turned a blind eye” to Epstein’s sex ring in order to reap millions by keeping him as a client. The government filed an amended civil complaint weeks later that unredacted some of its accusations about Staley, including the suggestion that he “may have been involved in Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation.” Wednesday’s filing peels the curtain back even further. JPMorgan Honcho ‘May Have Been Involved’ in Epstein Sex Ring, Lawsuit Alleges
“So when all hell breaks lo[o]se, and the world is crumbling, I will come here, and be at peace,” Staley wrote to Epstein in November 2009. “Presently, I’m in the hot tub with a glass of white wine. This is an amazing place. Truly amazing. Next time, we’re here together. I owe you much. And I deeply appreciate our friendship. I have few so profound.”
According to the complaint, the cache of messages reveal that “Staley corresponded with Epstein while Epstein was incarcerated and visited Epstein’s Virgin Islands residence on multiple occasions” and that “Epstein even advised Staley in connection with Staley’s salary negotiations at JP Morgan in July of 2008.” The filing suggests that Staley was a participant in Epstein’s trafficking scheme and cites emails discussing the banking honcho’s visits to Palm Beach, Florida and London, England, which allegedly coincided with Epstein’s payments to young women in his circle.
In a memorandum also filed on Wednesday, attorneys for the U.S. Virgin Islands said that Epstein “emailed Staley photos of young women in seductive poses.” The memorandum also claims that Staley’s JPMorgan email account contained messages about “women who they referred to by the names of Disney princesses that Epstein procured for Staley,” and “discussions of sex with young women.”
Meanwhile, the lawsuit claims that at least 20 victims of Epstein were paid more than “$1 million collectively” through JPMorgan accounts between 2003 and 2013. The filing alleges Epstein withdrew more than $775,000 in cash during that time period and that records show that Epstein’s JPMorgan accounts wired nearly $1.5 million “to known recruiters, including to the MC2 modeling agency, and another $150,000 to a private investigative firm.”
snip
Thats what I came here for. Its hilarious that they JP Morgan used the anti-laundering law as justification. They knew what they were doing all along.
Patriots, express your outrage.
Call Congress
US Capitol switchboard
(202) 224-3121.
Call the White House
Comments: 202-456-1111
Switchboard: 202-456-1414
TTY/TTD Comments: 202-456-6213
Send a letter to the White House
1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW,
Washington, DC 20500
Message: The Virgin Islands AG sued JPMorgan December 2022 claiming the investment bank “turned a blind eye” to Epstein’s sex ring in order to reap millions by keeping him as a client. The VI government filed an amended civil complaint weeks later that unredacted some of its accusations about Staley, including the suggestion that he, himself, “may have been involved in Epstein’s sex-trafficking operation.” The VI filing peels the curtain back even further that an upper echelon JPMorgan employee may have been involved in Epstein’s Sex Ring, the lawsuit alleges.
Significantly, the Vi lawsuit claims that at least 20 of Epstein’s sex providers were paid more than “$1 million collectively” through JPMorgan accounts between 2003 and 2013. The lawsuit filing also alleges Epstein withdrew more than $775,000 in cash during that time period. The record shows that Epstein’s JPMorgan accounts wired nearly $1.5 million “to known sex recruiters, including to the MC2 modeling agency, and another $150,000 to a private investigative firm.”
Banks are effectively prohibited from knowingly facilitating sex procurement, as laws like FOSTA-SESTA (2018) make it illegal to promote or facilitate sex trafficking, compelling financial institutions to de-risk and often terminate accounts linked to the adult industry. While legal sex work exists, banks often shun these clients to avoid reputational risk, money laundering, and potential legal liability.
See post number 10 on how to express your outrage.
Seems to me this is a civil war action by the CEO and board of the bank.
“JPMorgan’s Position: Banks Can Close Accounts”
fine ... now the Feds should close Chase’s FDIC insurance account ... tit for tat, you know ...
If JP Morgan can do it to Trump, they can do it to you. Why continue to bank with JP Morgan?
The word "Riot" is racist as we all know.
JPMorgan Chase should be dissolved and their assets seized as we know that the only true crime is racism.
I’d love to see the AWFLs, antifa, high school students, Somalis, mosques, et al all hit with similar TDS lawsuits.
JaBiden got nothing to say, he is demented.
Maybe Susan Rice can help solve this.
Has anyone else but me seen Susan Rice come out of the woodwork?
If you believe a bank is violating the law, you should file a complaint with the specific federal or state agency that regulates that institution. The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) is the primary agency for consumer-related complaints, but different institutions (national banks, state banks, credit unions) have different regulators.
Here is where to report a bank violation:
1. The Primary Regulator (Fastest Method)
National Banks & Federal Savings Associations: File a complaint with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) online at HelpWithMyBank.gov or by phone at 1-800-613-6743.
Federal Credit Unions: Report to the National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) online at ncua.gov or by calling 1-800-755-1030.
State-Chartered Banks (FDIC Insured): Contact the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) through their online Info and Support Center or by mail at:
FDIC Consumer Response Unit
1100 Walnut Street, Box #11
Kansas City, MO 64106
State-Chartered Banks (Not in Federal Reserve): Contact your state’s banking department or commissioner.
2. General Consumer Protection (For Unfair/Deceptive Practices)
CFPB: The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau handles complaints regarding unfair, deceptive, or abusive practices (e.g., mortgage issues, bank accounts, debt collection).
Website: consumerfinance.gov/complaint
Phone: 1-855-411-CFPB (2372)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.