President Donald Trump was unceremoniously dumped by banking giants JPMorgan and Bank of America after the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol Hill unrest, as the New York Post reports. The move, driven by Biden administration pressure, reeks of political vendetta cloaked in regulatory jargon. Conservatives are crying foul, and they’re not wrong.
Following the Jan. 6 melee, JPMorgan and Bank of America shuttered Trump’s accounts, citing pressure from Biden administration banking regulators. The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, FDIC, and Federal Reserve leaned on vague “reputational risk” rules to justify the debanking. It’s a flimsy excuse that smells more like ideology than oversight.
Sources from both banks, the nation’s largest by assets, confirmed that the debanking was tied directly to the Jan. 6 controversy. Regulators twisted the “reputational risk” clause, meant for money launderers and drug lords, to target Trump and other conservatives. This isn’t regulation -- it’s a weaponized blacklist.
Trump, a client of JPMorgan for nearly four decades, was stunned when the bank gave him just 20 days to clear out his accounts. Hundreds of millions in cash didn’t sway them. The swift boot suggests politics trumped profit.
“I had 100s of millions,” Trump said on CNBC, recalling the ordeal. “They told me, ‘I’m sorry, sir, we can’t have you. You have 20 days to get out.’” The betrayal stings when loyalty spans decades.
Bank of America followed suit, refusing Trump’s attempt to deposit over a billion dollars and open new accounts. “He was kissing my ass when I was president,” Trump said of CEO Brian Moynihan, who later rebuffed him. Apparently, political winds shift faster than banker handshakes.
A banking executive with direct knowledge admitted, “Regulators made it clear we shouldn’t do business with him.” The fear of regulatory wrath coerced compliance, turning banks into pawns of partisan agendas. It’s a chilling abuse of power.
JPMorgan’s own statement denies political motives: “We don’t close accounts for political reasons.” Yet, they applaud Trump’s push for regulatory reform, admitting change is “desperately needed.” That’s a convenient sidestep from the truth.
The “reputational risk” clause, wielded like a cudgel, didn’t just target Trump. Regulators used it to go after conservatives and January 6 protest participants, broadening the scope of their witch hunt. This isn’t about risk -- it’s about silencing dissent.
Now in his second term, Trump is striking back against debanking. He’s pushing an executive order to halt politically motivated account closures. The move signals a broader battle against woke financial overreach.
Trump’s regulators have already stopped enforcing the dubious “reputational risk” clause. It’s a step toward dismantling the mechanisms that let bureaucrats play favorites with banking access. But will it be enough?
Sen. Tim Scott, a Republican from South Carolina, is championing legislation to outlaw debanking entirely. His efforts aim to codify protections against this kind of financial discrimination. It’s a bold move in a system still riddled with progressive bias.
Bank of America’s spokesman declined to comment, dodging accountability. The Federal Reserve and FDIC followed suit, refusing to address their role in the debacle. Silence speaks louder than words when guilt is on the line.
Comptroller Jonathan V. Gould offered a rare admission: “It is unacceptable for banks to discriminate based on political beliefs.” He’s vowed to tackle the issue, but skeptics wonder if it’s too little, too late. Actions, not promises, will restore trust.
The debanking of Trump exposes a dangerous precedent: financial institutions bending to political pressure. If a former president can be blacklisted, no one is safe from the whims of ideologically driven regulators. This fight is just beginning, and conservatives are ready to push back.
