What did the subpoenas issued by the House Oversight Committee to JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank specifically demand and when were they served?
Executive summary
Two distinct sets of House subpoenas to JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank are in the record: one bundle issued by House committees in April 2019 seeking President Trump–related financial and tax records, and a later set issued by House Oversight Committee Chair James Comer on November 18, 2025 demanding Jeffrey Epstein–related financial files; the 2025 subpoenas specifically sought Epstein account records, internal bank probes and related transaction data to support congressional oversight of sex‑trafficking enforcement [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. April 2019 subpoenas: what was demanded and when they were served
In mid‑April 2019 two House panels — the Financial Services Committee and the House Intelligence Committee (working with other House Democrats) — issued subpoenas to Deutsche Bank and several other large banks seeking financial records tied to President Donald Trump, his family and his businesses; news reports date those committee subpoenas to April 15–16, 2019 [1] [5] [6]. The demands sought broad bank and tax records relevant to investigators’ inquiries into Trump’s finances and potential foreign influence, prompting immediate legal pushback including a 2019 lawsuit by President Trump to block production and later litigation over the scope of congressional subpoena power [1] [7].
2. November 18, 2025 Oversight subpoenas: the narrow Epstein focus and the date served
Chairman James Comer’s Oversight Committee issued subpoenas to JPMorgan Chase and Deutsche Bank on November 18, 2025, and the committee publicly transmitted a Deutsche Bank subpoena cover letter that same day indicating it was seeking “certain financial records in the possession, custody, or control of Deutsche Bank” relevant to the investigation into Jeffrey Epstein [2] [3]. Multiple outlets reported the JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank subpoenas were served or transmitted on November 18, 2025 and described the target as Epstein’s financial records [2] [8].
3. Exactly what the 2025 subpoenas demanded
The Oversight Committee’s stated purpose for the subpoenas was to obtain Epstein‑related account records, transactional data, internal bank investigations and documents revealing the banks’ knowledge of potential illicit activity so the committee could assess how financial institutions may have facilitated sex‑trafficking networks and to inform legislative reforms; the committee’s cover letter frames the records as “critical” to oversight of federal enforcement of sex‑trafficking laws [3] [4]. Reporting and the committee’s materials note particular points of interest: JPMorgan’s long‑running banking relationship with Epstein and an internal JPMorgan probe described in the subpoenas, and allegations that Epstein held accounts at Deutsche Bank between 2013 and possibly late 2018 — all items the committee sought in document form [2] [9] [4].
4. What the banks and committee said, and the immediate aftermath
Public statements and reporting indicate the committee received a tranche of documents in the weeks after the subpoenas — Oversight’s Republican majority said roughly 5,000 documents were produced in response by early December 2025 — and JPMorgan and Deutsche Bank provided records related to Epstein as part of their responses, according to committee releases and news reporting [10]. The committee characterized the production as assisting oversight; Democrats and civil‑society actors pushed for fuller disclosure and for additional sources such as the U.S. Virgin Islands, which the committee also approached [10] [2]. The record also carries precedent of contested bank subpoenas: the 2019 subpoenas prompted litigation and Supreme Court guidance on congressional subpoenas, a legal backdrop that has shaped how committees frame and narrow demands [7].
5. Limits of the public record and alternative perspectives
Public reporting and the committee’s cover letter make clear what the 2025 subpoenas asked for — Epstein‑linked account ledgers, suspicious‑activity probes and related transactional documentation — and the service date of November 18, 2025 is consistently reported [2] [3] [8]. Absent from the sources provided are the full, verbatim subpoena texts in every case and detailed descriptions of exactly which account numbers, date ranges or specific internal investigative files were compelled; where reporting mentions date ranges (for example, allegations that Deutsche Bank accounts ran through late 2018), those are presented as part of the subpoena’s claims rather than as independently confirmed bank admissions [9]. The banks’ public posture ranged from cooperation to guarded response, and previous bank subpoenas have led to lengthy court fights over scope and privilege — an implicit legal and political tension evident across the coverage [7] [11].