Trump Pushes Bank Crackdown, Eyes Action on ‘Political Bank Discrimination’/ Newslooks/ WASHINGTON/ J. Mansour/ Morning Edition/ President Trump alleges that major banks, including JPMorgan and Bank of America, refused his deposits due to political bias. In response, the White House is drafting an executive order targeting “politicized or unlawful debanking” practices. The move has reignited conflict-of-interest concerns and sent shockwaves through the financial sector.
Debanking Accusations Quick Looks
- Trump claims JPMorgan and BofA rejected his deposits after his first term.
- A draft White House order aims to penalize political “debanking.”
- JPMorgan: “We don’t close accounts for political reasons.”
- Trump: “They totally discriminate against… conservatives.”
- BofA, JPMorgan welcomed potential regulatory clarifications.
- Order may authorize monetary penalties against violating banks.
- Regulators pressured banks on “reputational risk” during Biden era.
- Trump’s executive order could drop as early as this week.
- Critics raise ethical concerns over Trump’s business interests.
- Fed recently ended reputational risk assessments for bank oversight.
Deep Look
Trump Targets Banks in Executive Action After Claiming Political Discrimination
President Donald Trump is preparing an executive order to crack down on what he calls “politicized banking practices,” after claiming that major U.S. banks—including JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America—discriminated against him and his supporters by refusing deposits for political reasons.
The draft executive order directs federal regulators to investigate and discipline banks accused of “unlawful debanking.” Disciplinary actions may include monetary penalties or other regulatory consequences. The announcement is expected as early as this week, according to two sources familiar with the plan.
Trump: “They Totally Discriminate Against Conservatives”
In a Tuesday interview with CNBC, Trump recounted what he said were deliberate attempts by JPMorgan and Bank of America to avoid accepting his funds after his first term in office.
“I had hundreds of millions, I had many, many accounts loaded up with cash… and they told me, ‘I’m sorry sir, we can’t have you. You have 20 days to get out,’” Trump claimed.
“They totally discriminate against, I think, me maybe even more, but they discriminate against many conservatives,” he added.
Trump said he attempted to move the rejected funds to Bank of America, only to be turned down again. Eventually, he claimed he distributed his wealth across smaller banks:
“I was putting $10 million here, $10 million there, did $5 million, $10 million, $12 million,” he said, without identifying which banks accepted the deposits.
JPMorgan and BofA Push Back
While not addressing Trump’s specific claims, JPMorgan responded with a firm denial:
“We don’t close accounts for political reasons, and we agree with President Trump that regulatory change is desperately needed.”
Bank of America also declined to confirm Trump’s account but said it welcomed clarification from the White House on banking policy:
“We’ve provided detailed proposals and will continue to work with the administration and Congress to improve the regulatory framework.”
Politics Meets Policy: Critics Cite Conflict of Interest
Critics warn that Trump’s personal involvement—stemming from his own banking experiences—raises ethical concerns. Trump’s expansive business holdings are housed in a trust but remain ultimately owned by the president, blurring lines between public policy and private interests.
Observers argue this executive action reflects how Trump’s grievances are becoming administration policies, with banks potentially punished based on personal slights rather than systemic issues.
The Role of Reputational Risk
During the Biden administration, regulators evaluated banks’ client decisions using a “reputational risk” metric—assessing whether doing business with certain individuals could damage the institution’s standing. Some banks reportedly flagged Trump-related dealings due to his legal entanglements and political controversies.
However, in June 2025, the Federal Reserve announced a reversal:
“Supervisors will no longer consider reputational risk in examining banks,” the Fed said—after industry backlash that the practice was vague and open to abuse.
Wells Fargo banking analyst Mike Mayo praised the administration’s shift:
“What the White House is doing is telling the banks not to hide behind regulations to deny loans or banking relationships.”
Industry Prepares, Seeks AML Reform
The Bank Policy Institute, a top industry group, noted that banks are often caught between client service and strict oversight.
“The heart of the problem is regulatory overreach and supervisory discretion,” the group said.
Lenders are hopeful the administration may also consider modernizing anti-money laundering (AML) laws, which banks have long argued are outdated and overly burdensome.
The Bigger Picture: Bank Regulation in 2025
Trump’s executive order could reset the regulatory framework around banking access. While conservatives argue banks are stifling dissent under pressure from liberal regulators, opponents fear the president is weaponizing financial oversight to benefit himself and his allies.
Despite ongoing denials from banks that politics plays any role in account closures, the impending executive order signals that “debanking” is set to become a defining issue in Trump’s second term, impacting how financial institutions operate, lend, and manage reputational concerns.
You must Register or Login to post a comment.