Capital one defends closure of Trump organization accounts
Capital One Financial has responded to a lawsuit filed over its decision to close bank accounts linked to the Trump Organization, arguing that the move was based on internal anti-money laundering reviews rather than political or ideological motivations.
The bank, in a legal filing submitted on Friday, stated that it closed the accounts following a detailed assessment conducted by its anti-money laundering (AML) specialists. The company argued that the decision was made after months of analysis and was consistent with its internal policies as well as regulatory requirements.
The filing represents the first time a major bank has publicly connected concerns related to money laundering risks with its decision to end a banking relationship involving the Trump family business. However, Capital One clarified that it has never accused the Trump Organization of committing illegal money laundering activities.
Instead, the bank said that the account closures were the result of routine compliance procedures. Capital One argued that documents presented in the case, along with the plaintiffs’ own claims, demonstrate that the decision was related to AML concerns rather than any attempt to discriminate against the company because of political beliefs.
The dispute began after Capital One informed the Trump Organization in March 2021 that it planned to close more than 300 accounts associated with businesses connected to former U.S. President Donald Trump. The Trump Organization and Eric Trump, Trump’s son, later filed a lawsuit in March 2025 in a Florida federal court, claiming that the bank had unfairly “debanked” them because of political pressure and what they described as the company’s “woke” policies.
The lawsuit alleged that Capital One’s decision was influenced by the political environment following the January 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. The plaintiffs argued that the bank wanted to distance itself from Trump and his supporters during a period of intense public and political scrutiny.
A federal court in Miami has already dismissed two versions of the complaint but allowed the plaintiffs opportunities to revise and submit updated claims. Capital One argued in its latest filing that the amended complaint continues to contain the same weaknesses as earlier versions and fails to establish evidence of unlawful discrimination.
The bank accused the Trump Organization of presenting selective information and relying on statements taken out of context. Capital One maintained that the allegations of political motivation were unsupported and ignored the broader circumstances behind the account closures.
According to the bank’s filing, certain transaction patterns identified during its review matched types of activities that federal banking authorities commonly recognize as requiring additional examination. Capital One said its AML team followed established procedures before reaching the decision to terminate the accounts.
The legal battle comes during a broader political debate in the United States over the issue of “debanking,” with some conservatives accusing financial institutions of unfairly targeting individuals and organizations because of their political views. During his second presidential term, Trump’s administration has criticized such practices and taken steps aimed at preventing what it describes as discriminatory banking decisions.
The controversy has also involved other major financial institutions. Trump previously filed a lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, making similar allegations regarding political discrimination. During his first term in office, Trump also took legal action against Capital One and Deutsche Bank in an effort to prevent the release of his financial records to Congress.
The case continues to highlight the growing tension between banking compliance practices, political concerns, and the debate over whether financial institutions should have broader restrictions on ending relationships with controversial clients.