Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Did Bank of America, Wells Fargo, or Citigroup receive complaints about flagging conservative customers and what were the dates?
Executive Summary
Bank of America, Wells Fargo and Citigroup have each been the subject of Republican state attorneys general letters or public scrutiny alleging “de-banking” or that banks flagged conservative, religious, or pro-gun customers; the documented complaint dates cluster in early-to-mid 2024 for Bank of America and Wells Fargo, and in mid-2025 for Citigroup’s policy response. Bank of America faced multiple multistate letters in April 2024 accusing it of cancelling conservative accounts and demanding transparency [1] [2] [3]; Wells Fargo was the subject of a 16-state inquiry in March 2024 about abrupt account closures including specific 2021 examples cited by the AGs [4] [5] [6]; Citigroup publicly updated its policy in June 2025 after public pressure and allegations in 2024–2025 about debanking [7] [8]. These records show formal complaints and public rebukes on distinct dates rather than a single coordinated filing across all three banks, and the banks’ responses and timing differ significantly.
1. How Bank of America came under formal scrutiny — April 2024 pressure that grew into later demands
A group of Republican attorneys general sent at least one prominent letter to Bank of America in mid- to late April 2024 alleging that the bank had pursued a pattern of “de-banking” conservative and religious customers, asking for detailed reports and policy changes within 30 days and naming specific instances such as closures affecting Christian ministries and contractors for federal agencies [1] [2]. The letters dated April 16, April 18 and April 25, 2024 are the clearest timestamps showing AGs’ coordinated action and demands for transparency [3] [1] [2]. Bank of America publicly denied discriminating on political or religious grounds, and the April 2024 documents reference an earlier January 2024 House Judiciary Committee report alleging banks were being asked to monitor “suspicious charges” — giving context to the AGs’ concerns [1].
2. Wells Fargo’s March 2024 inquiry and cited historical examples of account closures
Sixteen Republican state attorneys general led by Montana’s AG wrote Wells Fargo in March 2024 requesting documents and explanations for account closures they characterized as politically or ideologically motivated, and specifically referenced past closures including 2021 incidents involving former Republican candidates and a gun dealer [4] [5] [6]. The principal set of dates here centers on March 6–10, 2024, when those letters were published and when the AGs gave Wells Fargo 30 days to respond [4] [5] [6]. The Wells Fargo letters press for evidence about whether “reputational risk” or environmental, social and governance policies were driving exclusions; these inquiries mix concerns about partisan discrimination with criticism of the bank’s ESG commitments, showing a wider political rationale behind the complaints [5].
3. Citigroup’s June 2025 policy update followed public pushback over alleged debanking
Citi announced a corporate-policy update and trainings in June 2025 that explicitly stated it would not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation, a move described as responding to worries about debanking of conservative and Christian groups and following public admonishment from political leaders earlier in 2025 [7] [8]. Citi’s formal action is dated June 3–5, 2025 in the documents provided, and the bank framed the step as clarifying its Global Financial Access Policy and employee Code of Conduct [7] [8]. This indicates that while Citi did not appear to receive the same cluster of AG letters in early 2024 as BofA and Wells Fargo, it nonetheless felt compelled to make a public corrective policy statement in mid-2025 amid the broader controversy.
4. Contrasting the evidence: formal complaints vs. policy responses and denials
The factual record in these sources shows formal, dated complaints to Bank of America in April 2024 and to Wells Fargo in March 2024, each led by multistate coalitions of Republican attorneys general demanding documents and reforms [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6]. By contrast, Citigroup’s involvement appears primarily as a reactive internal policy revision in June 2025 rather than a documented AG complaint in the supplied materials [7] [8]. All three banks publicly denied making account decisions based on political views in some statements, and the AG letters often seek underlying documents that would substantiate or refute allegations — meaning the existence of letters shows complaint and inquiry, not proven systematic discrimination.
5. What’s missing and why the dates matter for assessing the claim
The supplied analyses establish complaint dates and policy announcements but do not produce final adjudications, internal documents, or regulatory findings that confirm systemic targeting. Dates are crucial: March–April 2024 marks formal AG complaints to Wells Fargo and Bank of America [4] [1] [2] [3], while June 2025 is when Citi publicly revised its policy [7] [8]. Without later investigative outcomes or court rulings within these sources, the record shows credible political and regulatory pressure on the banks at those specific times rather than conclusive proof that flagging or de-banking occurred as policy.