Capital One Says Trump Accounts Closed Over Money Laundering Concerns
Bank accounts held by President Donald Trump were closed by Capital One in 2021 after the bank flagged financial activity with characteristics of money laundering, according to a federal court filing that marks the first time a major bank has formally tied anti-money laundering concerns to the Trump family business. The disclosure came in a motion to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Trump Organization alleging the bank illegally closed its accounts for political reasons following the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot.
Background: A Decade-Long Banking Relationship Ends
Trump had banked with Capital One for more than a decade before the accounts were closed. The roughly 385 accounts were held by a variety of Trump-branded businesses, ranging from a golf course to a winery. In March 2021, Capital One notified the Trump Organization that “hundreds” of accounts would be closed by June 7, 2021.
According to AP News, the bank said in its court filing that “the closures were the result of months of analysis and a careful review by Capital One’s AML team in accordance with bank policies and regulatory guidance.” The term AML is an abbreviation for anti-money laundering.
The bank did not accuse the Trump Organization of actual money laundering, but stated that “the transaction patterns identified by Capital One are among the types of activity flagged by federal banking guidance.”
The Lawsuit and the Bank’s Defense
The Trump Organization and Eric Trump, the president’s son, filed the lawsuit in March 2025 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida. The plaintiffs alleged that Capital One closed the accounts because of “unsubstantiated, woke” beliefs and a desire to distance itself from Trump after the Capitol riot.
Capital One is now asking the court to dismiss the case permanently. In its filing, the bank said the Trump Organization’s allegations of political pretext were “misguided” and “based on cherry-picked quotations unsupported by the full context” of documents submitted to the court.
The bank also emphasized that it “never publicized the termination decision nor its confidential internal process giving rise to the closure, and it permitted Plaintiffs several months (and granted several extensions) to find new banking services, which they did.”
As NPR reported, Capital One’s account agreements allow it to “close any account in our sole discretion at any time for any or no reason,” language the Trump companies do not dispute. Judge Roy Altman, a Trump appointee presiding over the case, had already dismissed an earlier version of the lawsuit in March on similar grounds, ruling that a bank’s reason for closing an account under that kind of open-ended contract clause generally cannot be second-guessed in court.
Trump’s Legal Team Responds
President Trump’s legal team dismissed the bank’s claims Monday but did not address the internal findings by the bank.
“Capital One, along with other major banks, de-banked President Trump, his family, and his businesses for blatantly political reasons,” a spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said. “President Trump’s powerful lawsuit holds Capital One accountable for its disgraceful conduct, and we look forward to seeing this matter through to a just and proper conclusion.”
Capital One has denied that it closes customer accounts for political reasons, stating it “has not and does not close customer accounts for political reasons.”
The Broader Debanking Battle
The Capital One case is part of a wider campaign by Trump and his allies against what they describe as politically motivated debanking. Trump has separately filed a $5 billion lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase and CEO Jamie Dimon over similar allegations, as NPR reported. JPMorgan confirmed in a court filing that it closed accounts linked to Trump and some of his businesses in February 2021.
Dimon has acknowledged Trump’s frustration while defending the bank’s actions. “I agree with them. They have the right to be angry. I’d be angry, too,” Dimon said in a CNBC interview, according to Business Insider. “Why is a bank allowed to do that? But they’re forced to do it.” Dimon reiterated that the suit “has no merit.”
Conservatives have long alleged that banks debank them and their political allies. The allegations intensified after Operation Choke Point, an initiative during the Obama administration when regulators pressed banks to cut off financial services to the firearm industry, tobacco, and payday lenders, among others. The cryptocurrency industry also alleged it was a victim of debanking during the Biden administration.
Trump signed an executive order in August 2025 titled “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans” directing federal bank regulators to terminate examinations of banks over who they were doing business with. The order requires federal banking regulators to investigate whether banks have engaged in “politicized or unlawful debanking” and to issue penalties such as “fines or consent decrees.” The Trump administration has also subpoenaed records of the biggest banks as part of an investigation into alleged debanking.
Legal and Regulatory Implications
Capital One argues that federal banking-secrecy law, specifically the Bank Secrecy Act, would have barred it from disclosing internal anti-money laundering findings even if it wanted to. This is also at the center of a related fight over what portions of the case should remain sealed.
In a separate motion, Capital One asked the court to keep sealed a portion of one exhibit that it says contains information protected under the Bank Secrecy Act, along with employee names, customer account numbers, and unrelated compensation details. The Trump companies do not oppose sealing the account numbers but are contesting several other redactions.
Large sections of the Trump-linked amended complaint from July remain blacked out under a court-approved sealing order, including an entire portion titled “January 6, 2021: The Political Trigger.”
The case highlights tensions between banks’ obligations under anti-money laundering regulations and the Bank Secrecy Act versus public scrutiny of their decisions. It also raises questions about the extent to which banks can be held accountable for account closures when federal law may prohibit them from explaining their reasoning.
What’s Next
Judge Altman will now consider Capital One’s motion to dismiss. The bank has asked the court to dismiss the current complaint permanently, without another chance to refile, arguing that the latest version “suffers from the same fundamental flaws as their prior two pleadings.”
The parallel fight over what remains sealed in the case could also shape how much of the underlying evidence becomes public. And the outcome of this case could set precedent for how courts handle claims of political debanking versus legitimate banking decisions based on regulatory requirements.
Meanwhile, the separate $5 billion lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase continues to move through the courts, and the Trump administration’s investigation into alleged debanking practices across the banking industry remains ongoing. As Al Jazeera noted, the disclosure marks the first time a bank has formally tied money-laundering concerns to Trump’s family business in a court filing, adding a significant new dimension to the ongoing scrutiny of the former president’s financial dealings.
For the Trump Organization, the stakes are high: a permanent dismissal would end its legal challenge against Capital One. For the banking industry, the case could clarify the boundaries between regulatory compliance obligations and the political scrutiny that comes with severing ties with high-profile customers.