admin
On January 22, 2026, President Trump filed a lawsuit in Florida seeking at least $5 billion against JPMorgan Chase and CEO Jamie Dimon, alleging the bank shut off his accounts after the January 6, 2021 Capitol unrest. The complaint accuses the bank of “debanking” the former president and his businesses — a stark reminder that powerful institutions can quietly weaponize finance against political enemies.
According to the lawsuit, JPMorgan placed Trump, the Trump Organization and members of his family on an informal blacklist and refused to provide any remedy, forcing them out of the banking system for political reasons. The filing points to state law protections in Florida against lenders disengaging from customers based on political opinions or affiliations, framing this as not just a personal grievance but a principle-of-law fight.
JPMorgan has pushed back, insisting it does not close accounts for political or religious beliefs and saying account closures stem from legal or regulatory risk assessments — language many Americans have come to expect from banks that bow to Washington and big media. The bank’s denial won’t comfort patriots who watched financial giants silence and punish conservatives over the last several years; words on a press release don’t repair livelihoods or reputations.
This lawsuit is about far more than one family’s bank accounts. It’s about whether Big Finance will act as judge, jury and executioner for political elites who deem certain views unacceptable, and whether hardworking Americans are next when they step out of line with the coastal consensus. If institutions can monetize political conformity, then free speech and free enterprise lose meaning; conservatives should rally behind any legal fight that pushes back.
Trump’s lead lawyer in the case is Alejandro Brito, a Miami-based litigator who filed the complaint and has built a track record taking on media and corporate giants for alleged bias and unlawful conduct. Brito’s involvement signals this will be a high-profile, aggressive campaign in the courts — the same kind of fight Trump and his allies have pursued against other financial firms accused of “debanking,” like the Capital One case filed in 2025.
Legal experts will debate damages and the evidentiary hurdles ahead, and JPMorgan will mount a vigorous defense; courts are where these disputes should be resolved, not in backroom determinations by CEOs and compliance departments. Still, the optics are powerful: a sitting or former president suing the biggest bank in America over political discrimination throws a bright light on the cozy alliance between corporate elites and partisan gatekeepers.
Americans who love liberty should watch this case closely and demand accountability from institutions that think they can police politics through banking decisions. The rule of law means equal treatment under the marketplace and the courtroom, not a financial aristocracy deciding who gets access to the economy. This lawsuit is a stand for those principles, and conservatives should be unapologetically on the side of fairness and free speech.
