Which major U.S. banks have faced complaints or investigations for closing or flagging Republican or conservative accounts and when did those actions occur?

1. What supporters of the “debanking” claim are pointing to — a concise inventory of allegations

Conservative activists and some Republican lawmakers allege that major banks have closed or flagged accounts belonging to conservative individuals, donor groups, political campaigns, or industry sectors such as firearms and cryptocurrency, framing these moves as politically motivated “debanking.” The public claims name JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America most frequently, with broader mentions of Wells Fargo and Citibank in legislative and press discussions; specific incidents cited include account terminations, declines in payment processing for conservative events, and flagged transaction monitoring that allegedly hampered conservative groups’ operations ^{[4] [5]}. These complaints culminated in congressional hearings, hundreds or thousands of complaints referenced by senators, and a presidential executive order directing probes into whether banks used “reputational risk” or examiner guidance to exclude customers on political grounds ^{[4] [6]}.

2. How JPMorgan and Bank of America figured in filings and public accusations

JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America explicitly noted the issue in regulatory filings and public statements in 2025 after being cited by President Trump and other conservatives; both banks have publicly denied targeting customers for their political views. In SEC filings, JPMorgan and Bank of America flagged the administration’s executive order and agency inquiries as material matters to watch, and both described ongoing reviews of internal policies and requests from regulators about account-closure practices ^[1]. The banks state they do not close accounts for political reasons and point to compliance-driven processes and legal exposures — an explanation regulators and the banks frame as consistent with banks’ obligation to manage risk and follow anti-money-laundering rules ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Concrete incidents flagged in reporting and oversight — what actually happened and when

Reporting and oversight documents point to a mix of specific incidents and more general complaint patterns: critics cite a 2022 JPMorgan decision to close the account of the National Committee for Religious Freedom and other merchant-processing denials for conservative events, while regulatory complaint datasets and congressional testimony through early 2025 recorded numerous public grievances alleging account closures tied to political beliefs. These episodes sparked Senate and House attention through 2024–2025 and fed into the August 7, 2025 executive order, which named the problem and directed federal agencies to review past or current practices that might have used reputational-risk language to justify restricting services ^{[2] [6] [4]}. Regulators later reported reviews of complaint data and large-institution information as part of implementation steps ^[7].

4. Regulators’ response and the legal framing of “reputational risk”

Federal regulators reacted by ordering reviews and instructing examiners to remove or re-evaluate “reputational risk” as a ground for restricting customer access. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency announced actions in 2025 to depoliticize federal oversight and to examine complaint records and information from the largest banks for unlawful or politicized debanking ^[7]. The administration’s executive order directed agencies to consider enforcement actions where appropriate and to develop guidance ensuring that political or religious beliefs are not grounds for denying financial services; proponents argue this protects constitutional rights, while opponents warn it could limit banks’ ability to manage legal and compliance risks ^{[3] [6]}.

5. Banks’ defense, industry perspective, and competing explanations

Large banks uniformly defend their actions as compliance-driven, not political. Banks argue they are legally permitted to choose customers within statutory limits and must follow anti-money-laundering and risk-based rules; they contend “reputational risk” is a valid safety-and-soundness consideration rather than a political checklist ^{[5] [2]}. Consumer advocates and many Democrats counter that reputation-based guidance has been misused to exclude lawful customers; Republicans and conservative groups argue regulators encouraged such exclusions. Each side frames the evidence through different lenses: industry compliance and risk management versus alleged political discrimination — a divide that shaped the hearings, filings, and the executive order in 2025 ^{[4] [8]}.

6. What remains unresolved and where reporting is headed next

Key facts remain unresolved: regulators have signaled reviews of complaint files and bank records but public, bank-specific findings of politically motivated, unlawful debanking have not been released in the material provided here. Ongoing investigations, SEC filings, and agency reports through late 2025 will determine whether specific banks face enforcement actions, fines, or mandated policy changes; meanwhile, legislative proposals and additional oversight hearings aim to codify protections or clarify examiners’ guidance ^{[7] [6]}. The debate’s trajectory will hinge on whether regulators produce bank-level findings showing unlawful conduct versus broader patterns of risk-based decisions that banks defend as legitimate.