Which banks have publicly acknowledged closing or limiting services to Trump or the Trump Organization since 2021, and what reasons did they give?
Executive summary
Since the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot several banks publicly acknowledged ending or curtailing relationships with Donald Trump or the Trump Organization — most prominently JPMorgan Chase, Capital One, Deutsche Bank, Signature Bank and small South Florida lenders — and the institutions variously framed their decisions as driven by risk, regulatory or reputational concerns while denying partisan motivations; those denials have in turn prompted lawsuits from Trump and his companies [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Reporting shows a mix of explicit account closures, PAC-donation suspensions and “winding down” of lending relationships, and the banks’ stated rationales do not uniformly match the public narrative that political discrimination was the singular cause [6] [7] [8].
1. JPMorgan Chase — closed or restricted accounts; cites compliance and regulatory risk, denies politics
JPMorgan Chase has been sued by President Trump alleging the bank closed his business accounts in spring 2021, but the bank has publicly denied shutting accounts for political beliefs and suggested the actions reflected federal rules, compliance considerations and business risk rather than partisan animus [2] [7] [9]. Multiple outlets reporting on the January 2026 lawsuit say the suit alleges account closures occurred “on the heels” of Jan. 6, 2021, while JPMorgan has pushed back that it does not close accounts for political or religious reasons and that regulatory obligations factor into its decisions [2] [1] [7].
2. Capital One — mass corporate account closures in 2021; bank denies political motivation
The Trump Organization sued Capital One after the bank notified it in March 2021 that “hundreds” of corporate accounts would be closed that June, and the company framed those closures as political “debanking”; Capital One has told reporters and, per company statements, that it “has not and does not close customer accounts for political reasons,” asserting routine business and risk-based practices instead [4] [3] [7].
3. Deutsche Bank — severed lending ties after Jan. 6; cited reputational concerns and prior deliberations
Deutsche Bank publicly moved to end its relationship with Trump in January 2021 after reviewing the fallout from the Capitol attack and earlier reputational pressures, with coverage saying the bank had been considering trimming ties since November 2020 and cited negative publicity and business considerations in its decision to quit doing new business with him [6] [10] [11].
4. Signature Bank and small lenders — immediate breakaways and wind-downs tied to Jan. 6
Signature Bank issued a statement after Jan. 6 urging Trump to resign and announced it would close his accounts, and at least one small South Florida lender (Professional Bank) said it would “wind down” its relationship with Trump — actions that outlets tied directly to the Capitol riot and the firms’ internal policies on conduct and reputation [5].
5. Broader context — PAC suspensions, sector restrictions and disputed motives
Beyond individual account actions, several large banks also suspended political donations and reviewed sector exposures in the wake of January 6, and regulators later flagged that banks sometimes make “inappropriate distinctions” among customers by industry; banks argue they weigh credit, regulatory and reputational risk, while critics and plaintiffs contend such judgments have at times carried political or ideological freight — a disputed line that has fueled litigation and regulatory scrutiny [6] [1] [8].
6. Litigation and the limits of public explanations
The pattern of lawsuits — the Trump Organization v. Capital One and Trump’s 2026 suit against JPMorgan and Jamie Dimon — underscores that many banks declined to specify granular, public justifications for particular account closures, instead pointing to compliance and risk frameworks; courts and discovery, not press accounts, remain the most reliable routes to resolving those factual disputes, and public statements from banks have consistently emphasized risk- and rule-based rationales even as plaintiffs allege political discrimination [3] [2] [7].