Imagine being a billionaire, a former president, and still being turned away by your bank. That's exactly what happened to President Donald Trump after the January 6, 2021, Capitol Hill event, when two of America’s largest financial institutions, JPMorgan and Bank of America, severed ties with him under pressure from Biden administration regulators. This isn’t just a personal slight—it’s a glaring example of government overreach in the financial sector.
According to the New York Post, in a stunning move, Trump was debanked by both JPMorgan and Bank of America due to his association with the January 6 controversy, with regulators citing a "reputational risk" rule to justify the pressure on these banking giants.
Let’s rewind to early 2021, just weeks after Trump’s first term ended. Following the Capitol event on January 6, sources at both JPMorgan and Bank of America—holding the top two spots in U.S. banking by assets—confirmed that the decision to cut ties was directly tied to Trump’s actions during that tumultuous day.
Biden administration regulators, including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve, exerted significant pressure on these banks. They wielded a "reputational risk" rule, traditionally aimed at curbing dealings with money launderers or drug lords, but now apparently extended to conservatives and January 6 participants. This broad application raises serious questions about fairness in banking access.
One banking executive with direct knowledge admitted the climate of fear. “Regulators put the fear of God in you if you did business with people like Trump,” an executive at JPMorgan revealed. It’s a chilling insight into how political narratives can infiltrate financial decisions.
Trump himself shared the personal impact during a recent CNBC interview on a Tuesday. “I had 100s of millions... they told me, ‘I’m sorry, sir, we can’t have you. You have 20 days to get out,” he recounted, noting his decades-long relationship with JPMorgan spanning 35 to 40 years.
The rejection didn’t stop there. When Trump approached Bank of America to deposit over a billion dollars and open new accounts, he was turned away. “Moynihan was kissing my ass when I was president... and he said, we can’t do it,” Trump recalled, pointing fingers at CEO Brian Moynihan.
Neither bank’s leadership stood up for him, according to Trump. He called out both Moynihan and JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon for failing to defend a long-standing client against regulatory pressure. It’s a stark reminder of how quickly loyalty can evaporate under political heat.
Official responses from the banks are telling in their silence. A Bank of America spokesman declined to comment, while a JPMorgan representative wouldn’t deny the central role of the "reputational risk" edict. The Federal Reserve and FDIC also stayed mum on the matter.
However, JPMorgan did issue a statement supporting reform. “We don’t close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed,” the statement read. It also commended the White House for tackling this issue.
Fast forward to today, with Trump in his second term, and the tide may be turning. He’s vowed to end politically motivated debanking, with his administration already halting enforcement of the "reputational risk" clause. An executive order to ban such practices is on the horizon. Senator Tim Scott (R-SC) is also stepping up, pushing legislation to outlaw debanking based on political or religious beliefs. Meanwhile, Comptroller of the Currency Jonathan V. Gould told The Post, “It is unacceptable for banks to discriminate against customers... I intend to assess the size and scope of this problem.”
This saga isn’t just about Trump—it’s about your financial freedom. When regulators can weaponize vague rules to target individuals based on political views, it sets a dangerous precedent for everyone. The banking system should be a neutral tool, not a political weapon.
For investors and savers, this is a wake-up call to diversify your financial exposure. Consider smaller, community-focused banks or credit unions less likely to bow to federal pressure. And keep an eye on legislative efforts like Senator Scott’s—supporting fair access to banking is a step toward protecting liberty.
Ultimately, wealth-building thrives in a free market, not under the thumb of overzealous regulators. Trump’s fight against debanking could reshape the landscape, ensuring that no one—regardless of politics—gets locked out of the financial system. Let’s hope this executive order delivers on that promise.