Trump files $5bn lawsuit against JPMorgan over alleged debanking

US President Donald Trump has launched a high-stakes $5 billion legal challenge against JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, claiming that the country’s largest bank cut off banking services to him and his businesses for political reasons. The lawsuit, filed in Miami-Dade County, Florida, alleges the bank closed multiple accounts in 2021 and placed the president and his companies on an informal “blacklist” that hampered their ability to secure financial services elsewhere, inflicting reputational and financial harm.

Trump’s complaint asserts that JPMorgan’s actions constituted unlawful “debanking” because they stemmed from political bias rather than legitimate legal or regulatory concerns, a charge the bank denies. The filing represents a significant escalation in his confrontation with major financial institutions and comes amid broader disputes between the White House and Wall Street over credit conditions and regulatory oversight.

According to the lawsuit, JPMorgan notified the Trump Organisation and associated entities in February 2021 that it would terminate their accounts within 60 days. The president’s legal team contends that the bank cited no credible business justification, instead acting to distance itself from Trump in the wake of the January 6, 2021 Capitol violence. The suit accuses Dimon of orchestrating a covert warning to other lenders about engaging with Trump, which the president’s attorneys describe as a “blacklist” that discouraged further business relationships.

JPMorgan has rejected the core allegations, stating it does not close accounts for political or religious reasons and that account closures are driven by risk assessments and compliance with legal obligations. The bank said it would vigorously defend itself, emphasising that the lawsuit lacks merit and misrepresents the reasons for its decisions.

The legal confrontation highlights deepening tensions between the US government and US financial firms over perceived political influence in banking services. Critics of debanking practices argue that financial institutions have too much discretion in choosing clients, potentially allowing political considerations to override contractual terms. Legal experts note, however, that banks generally retain broad rights to terminate relationships, and proving political motivation in court could be difficult without clear evidence of discriminatory intent.

This lawsuit is not Trump’s first against a banking giant. He and his affiliates have pursued similar claims against Capital One Financial, asserting that the bank curtailed services to his businesses after his presidential term ended. Those cases have seen mixed results in early proceedings, with financial institutions pushing for dismissals on contractual and jurisdictional grounds.

The broader debate over alleged politically motivated banking actions has engaged regulators and lawmakers, prompting discussions about whether federal oversight should more tightly constrain how banks exercise reputational risk assessments. Federal banking regulators have reviewed “reputational risk” guidance that in previous years encouraged scrutiny of clients on the basis of environmental, social, and governance factors, and some proposals have sought to limit the influence of such standards on supervisory decisions.

The dispute also intersects with Trump’s policy agenda on consumer finance, including a push to cap credit card interest rates at 10 per cent for a limited period, a move opposed by senior banking executives. At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Dimon warned that such a cap could reduce credit availability and harm consumers, arguing it would create “economic disaster” conditions if broadly imposed across the industry.

Analysts say the lawsuit may have ripple effects beyond the immediate parties, potentially shaping how financial institutions manage politically exposed clients and how courts interpret contractual rights in the banking sector. If the case survives early motions, it could yield extensive discovery into internal bank communications and practices, forcing lenders to defend operational decisions under public scrutiny.

Trump’s legal action against JPMorgan also reflects the evolving dynamics of his relationship with Wall Street power brokers. Dimon, long a prominent figure in corporate America, previously had periods of alignment and tension with Trump on economic policy, deregulation, and advisory roles. Those interactions have shaped perceptions on both sides, adding layers of personal and institutional history to what is now a contentious courtroom battle.