NEW YORK — As U.S. President Donald Trump pressures institutions he views as adversaries, JPMorgan Chase and Capital One are fighting back. It is a strategy that legal experts and industry sources say may carry fewer risks than giving in. Trump and his businesses are suing the banks, alleging they closed his accounts in 2021 for political reasons. They deny the claims. Capital One told a federal court in July that it closed Trump’s accounts following an internal anti-money-laundering review, sparking renewed scrutiny including from a senior Democratic senator who last week pressed the bank for more details. Capital One has not accused Trump or his businesses of money-laundering. Spokespeople for both banks declined to comment. The Trump Organization last week called the anti-money-laundering review a pretext to conceal a politically motivated decision. While several legal experts said the banks have strong defenses, fighting Trump poses risks for the banks by potentially deepening animus with the president and airing confidential internal deliberations in public. But settling could be more hazardous. It could encourage lawsuits from many other customers claiming they were similarly “debanked,” half a dozen legal experts and banking industry sources said. A federal bank regulator is probing about 100,000 such complaints against multiple banks and is expected to soon release its findings. “The larger risk of settling is we don’t know what the Trump family might demand,” said Todd Zywicki, a George Mason University law professor who has worked with Trump’s transition and agency review teams on federal financial oversight. “It could invite additional lawsuits by people who faced adverse actions over their bank accounts and, depending on the terms of individual settlements, provide information to anyone who claims they were debanked,” Zywicki added. Debanking occurs when a bank cuts off an account holder’s access to services, often because of concern about legal, financial or reputational risks. A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said Capital One, JPMorgan and other major institutions debanked the president, his family and businesses for “blatantly” political reasons. “President Trump’s powerful lawsuits are holding these bad actors accountable for their disgraceful conduct,” the spokesperson said. Legal experts say banks have strong cases Republicans have for years accused Wall Street banks of discriminatory left-leaning “woke” policies to cut off services to religious or conservative groups and conservative-aligned industries such as fossil-fuel companies and gunmakers. Trump has ratcheted up that pressure. In a civil lawsuit filed in March 2025, his son Eric Trump and the Trump Organization alleged Capital One closed more than 300 accounts following the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol because of the bank’s political bias and “woke” beliefs. They are seeking unspecified damages and a court declaration that the closures were politically motivated. Then in January 2026, Trump sued JPMorgan and CEO Jamie Dimon, accusing them of closing his accounts to promote a “woke” agenda. Trump is seeking at least US$5 billion in damages and a declaration that the bank acted unlawfully. The law is generally on banks’ side because customer agreements typically confer broad discretion to close accounts, said several legal experts and a top industry source familiar with the issues, although lenders frequently say federal regulations are the primary reason for doing so. Capital One and JPMorgan have cited that discretion in their defenses. Capital One said its account closures resulted from a careful review by its AML team “in accordance with bank policies and regulatory guidance.” A judge has tossed two versions of the complaint in that case, but allowed amendments. JPMorgan has called Trump’s US$5 billion lawsuit meritless, and said it does not close accounts on political grounds. “For banks, the strength of the case is always a key factor in deciding whether to settle or litigate — even when the other party is the president,” said Ed Mills, a Raymond James banking analyst. Targets fare well when they fight back The Trump administration has targeted other perceived adversaries, including media organizations, law firms and universities, for what it has said are valid course corrections, necessary probes of wrongdoing and legitimate policy initiatives. Some of those cases have shown that targets who push back in court can fare well, said one source who is not working on the banks’ cases but familiar with the issues. Several law firms, for example, won rulings blocking administration measures. Some firms that reached deals, meanwhile, have been accused by other lawyers and media commentators of attempting to curry favor with the administration. While banks frequently settle civil litigation, doing so where the allegations concern systemic practices can expose them to broader financial harm, legal experts said. Settlements relating to the 2007 to 2009 mortgage crisis and later rate-rigging scandals, for example, generated years of follow-on litigation. Cryptocurrency companies, gun groups and others have also complained about being debanked. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is probing around 100,000 debanking complaints as well as banks’ internal lending policies, including those of Capital One and JPMorgan. The Justice Department is also probing debanking allegations, Reuters and others reported in June. If Capital One and JPMorgan ever appeared to concede that they closed accounts without sufficient grounds, they could open themselves to additional lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny and compensation claims, two of the banking sources said. The banks can also afford the best defense from top litigators. JPMorgan has hired Jones Day, a major firm with ties to Republican administrations, including Trump’s, while Capital One is using Debevoise & Plimpton. The firms did not respond to requests for comment. “Both these banks are led by formidable CEOs ... who have a proven track record,” said Todd Baker, senior fellow at the Richman Center for Business, Law and Public Policy at Columbia University. “They are not afraid to take risks.” --- Reporting by Nupur Anand and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Michelle Price and Matthew Lewis
