Banks creep into politics and private life. Trump at the helm of JPMorgan

More and more common todaywho gets «debanking» the new word. It even appeared in explanatory dictionaries. Means be deprived to the person from banking services: But not because the actual or potential customer violates some laws related to money, for example, engages in money laundering or transfers money to terrorists. Such a person cannot access their bank accounts. they must be blocked in accordance with applicable laws.

No, it is about depriving a person of access to banking services for political reasons. Or because of the person behavior defies the bank’s notions of what is good and what is bad (by the way, some banks have their own corporate value system, which may differ from the general system adopted in the country):

It seems that banks should be apolitical and tolerant of their customers, serving everyone regardless of nationality, religion, political views and behavior (except when the behavior is in clear conflict with existing laws).

Looks like «debanking» start the termto spread widely In 2023, when in the UK flared up scandal՝ associated with the famous English politician Nigel Farage around։

Being a member of the European Parliament since the end of the 1990s, he stood out for his sharp criticism of European integration within the framework of the European Union and the Eurozone. And became one of the most active initiators of Brexit. At the end of December 2019, the British newspaper Financial Times included Farage in its published list of 50 people who “made the face of the decade”. Presumably, Faraj had many political opponents. But unexpectedly it turned out that he has opponents not only among politicians, but also from the banking world.

In June 2023, Coutts, a member of the NatWest group, blocked Nigel Farage’s personal and business accounts without explanation. At first, the politician assumed that this happened because of the news of receiving money from the Russian RT channel. Farage later said he had been denied access to the accounts because the bank had identified him as a “political figure”.

According to Farage, the 36-page document attributes to him a friendship with former US President Donald Trump, and also discusses his political views, his stance on LGBT people and his attitude towards Russia. Moreover, the politician claims that he was characterized as a “racist and xenophobe”.

The scandal was huge. By the way, not only Farage was upset, but also many other politicians who realized that they are also not immune to the whims of bankers. The confrontation between Farage and the bank ended in a victory for the politician. Even British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak condemned the blocking of accounts due to political views. The scandal led to the resignations of NatWest Group chief executive Alison Rose and Coutts bank chief Peter Flavell.

Farage’s aforementioned story reminded us that debanking has happened in the UK before. Several Muslim organizations, in particular, have recalled that In 2014, HSBC closed their accounts, probably due to a religious factor: Bank executives said the decision to close the accounts was “absolutely unrelated to race or religion.”

Here is another similar case in the foggy Albion Isles. In 2016, the Co-operative Bank closed the bank accounts of Friends of Al-Aqsa, Palestine Solidarity Campaigns and about 25 other Palestine-related organizations. The Independent reported in the same 2016 that the decision to close the accounts was made without any explanation. At that time the Govt to announce was that it empowered banks to reduce the risks associated with possible questionable financing or money laundering.

There are many similar cases in continental Europe as well. in April 2023 former lobbyist Frédéric Baldan initiated a criminal case against the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, in the investigative chamber of Liège. Baldan accused von der Leyen of abuse of official position.

We are talking about the famous “Pfizergate” scandal. The essence of the scandal is that there was a secret SMS correspondence between von der Leyen and the head of Pfizer, Albert Burla, which led to a dubious deal to supply 1.8 billion doses of a vaccine against the coronavirus, worth about 35 billion euros. In June 2023, Baldan’s lobbyist certification was revoked. Two years later, he reported on Platform X that his accounts at ING and Nagelmackers banks in Namur (Belgium) had been closed.

Baldan published a letter in which the bank informed him about the decision to close the accounts. According to Baldan, the closing of the accounts affected not only his personal bank account, but also the accounts of his consulting firm, his household, as well as his five-year-old son’s savings account.

The loudest scandal related to debanking in Germany took place in November last year. At the same time, several German cooperative banks have closed the accounts of the opposition party Alternative for Germany, which has serious chances of winning the next Bundestag elections.:

Some banks brazenly announce that they will pursue a debanking policy based on their understanding of what is good and what is bad. From 1 November 2023 National Australia Bank (NAB, Australian Banking Group, one of the big four banks in Australia) threateningly stated: will block accounts of citizens publishing unauthorized statements on the Internet.

In Canada, in 2022, a wave of closing accounts rose, which can be called debanking. At that time, the country was engulfed in protests by citizens and companies regarding all kinds of bans and restrictions, which were allegedly introduced to fight against the “COVID pandemic”. The prohibitions and restrictions were illegal in nature. In response to the protest, Canadian banks blocked at least 76 accounts of the protesters, worth a total of C$3.2 million.mb: Later, the courts recognized them as illegal.

There were not few cases of debanking in the USA. On August 7, 2025, Trump issued an executive order calling for an end to debanking and punishing those who unfairly cut off legitimate customers from the banking system.

Here is the most recent and perhaps the most resonant story on the subject of bank debanking. The most recent, since it started in the second half of January 2026. Most resonant for at least two reasons. Because Donald Trump, the 47th president of the USA, appears in it as a victim of debanking. And the bank insulting the US president is JPMorgan, the largest bank in the United States։

All this is quite detailed is described “What is debanking and why is Trump suing JPMorgan over it?” in the article. On January 22, CNN and Bloomberg reported that Trump filed a $5 billion lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase Bank and its CEO Jamie Dimon because the bank stopped providing banking services to him personally, Donald Trump, and his businesses in 2021.

The denial of services, the lawsuit states, was due to political reasons. The mentioned article states: “Trump’s legal team not only claims that JPMorgan made the wrong decision, but accuses the bank of turning financial infrastructure into a political tool.”

The closing of the accounts has caused significant financial and reputational damage to Donald Trump. Moreover, as if on the sidelines, the US president explained that he filed the lawsuit not only to compensate for his own losses, but also to create a convincing precedent and prevent future debanking in America that violates the US Constitution.

This precedent, Trump supporters say, should strengthen the president’s August executive order mentioned above. This ordinance prohibits banks and other financial institutions from denying or restricting services based on political or religious beliefs. The order directs federal bank regulators to remove “reputation risk” provisions from their guidelines, reinstate customers who have been illegally deprived of bank accounts, investigate past discriminatory practices and refer religious denials to the attorney general.

Jamie Dimon denies wrongdoing and believes there is an element of “personal vendetta” in the lawsuit. After all, Trump could address his claim only to the bank, and he is also addressing it to the head of the bank, Jamie Dimon. The decision regarding Trump was “subjective” and “politically motivated.” Furthermore, Dimon is a member of the Democratic Party and thus a political opponent of Republican Trump.

Those who agree with Dimon’s opinion about “personal revenge” pay attention to such a “trifle”; US President Donald Trump announced on January 10th the introduction of a fixed maximum interest rate of 10% on credit cards, starting on the anniversary of his inauguration on January 20th. Dimon responded to this initiative of the president.

Speaking at the World Economic Forum (WEF) meeting in Davos, he said Trump’s proposed restriction would lead to an “economic disaster”. Probably, it angered the owner of the White House. Because the lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase Bank and Jamie Dimon appeared literally one day after the speech of the head of the bank in Davos.

By the way, Trump said that in 2021 he was debanked not only by JPMorgan Chase, but also by Bank of America. However, the head of the second bank is afraid to criticize Trump, hoping that he will be able to avoid the trial.

The lawyers of the Trump team emphasize that the guilt of JPMorgan Chase bank can be proven even on the basis that the blocking of Trump and his business in 2021 was done in gross violation of the bank’s own internal rules.

Some observers believe Trump’s lawsuit against a major Wall Street bank is unprecedented in US history. No owner of the White House has dared to do this. It is believed that the 47th US president wants to control the US banking system: By the way, at the beginning of November, the US government started an investigation against JPMorgan Chase by order of the president. The investigation concerned whether the bank provided its customers with fair access to banking services.

JPMorgan what happened at the time was connecting with Trump’s August executive order overhauling bank policies that could have led to customer rejections due to “reputational risks.” Especially given that he has already launched a prosecutorial investigation into US Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, which has a very high chance of escalating into legal proceedings against Powell. of the claim.

For now, experts refrain from evaluating what decision the court will make in this case. Of course, the court’s ruling on Trump’s lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase and Dimon could have far-reaching consequences. The mentioned article concludes:

«If the court considers the idea that a major bank used control of its accounts to punish a sitting president for political reasons, it could open the door to new legal restrictions on how financial institutions manage reputational risks.:

On the other hand, if JPMorgan successfully defends its right to close accounts, the outcome of the case could strengthen banks’ broad powers to decide which customers they serve, even if those decisions affect influential public figures.”

VALENTINE KATASONOV

fondsk.ru

Translation by Zhanna Avetisyan

—