JPMorgan Closed Trump's Accounts After Jan. 6—The New Politics of Banking

In February 2021, somewhere in a JPMorgan Chase office, an employee clicked "close account" on Donald Trump's personal banking relationship. It was exactly one month after January 6th—a timing that raises questions about coincidence versus calculation.

The revelation came through recent court filings, marking an unprecedented moment: America's largest bank severing ties with a sitting president (at the time). While JPMorgan described it as routine account review, the optics tell a different story.

The Risk Calculation

Why did JPMorgan make this call? On the surface, it's about risk management. Post-January 6th, Trump faced mounting legal challenges, creating what banks euphemistically call "reputational risk."

But dig deeper, and you'll find a more complex calculation. JPMorgan handles billions in government business annually—from Treasury operations to federal agency deposits. The bank's relationship with Washington dwarfs any individual account, even a former president's.

This isn't just about Trump. Since the 2008 financial crisis, major banks have become acutely sensitive to political winds. Regulatory relationships can make or break billion-dollar business lines. When Wells Fargo faced account fraud scandals, the Federal Reserve capped its growth for years. The message was clear: political missteps have financial consequences.

The Domino Effect

JPMorgan wasn't alone. Deutsche Bank, Trump's longtime lender, announced it would cease new business with him. Signature Bank went further, closing Trump-related accounts entirely. Yet smaller regional banks continued their relationships, prioritizing profit over political pressure.

This fragmentation reveals something important: there's no universal standard for political risk assessment in banking. Each institution draws its own lines, creating an inconsistent landscape where access to financial services can depend on political calculations.

The Bigger Picture: Financial Deplatforming

Trump's case fits a broader pattern. Remember "Operation Choke Point"? During the Obama era, banks reportedly received pressure to cut ties with certain industries—gun dealers, payday lenders, adult entertainment. Critics called it financial censorship; supporters saw it as responsible regulation.

Now we're seeing similar dynamics play out with individuals. PayPal has suspended accounts for political reasons. Cryptocurrency exchanges face pressure over certain transactions. The line between legitimate risk management and political discrimination is increasingly blurred.

What This Means for Everyone Else

If banks can close accounts based on political considerations, what does that mean for ordinary customers? The implications extend far beyond high-profile cases.

Consider small business owners who attended January 6th but committed no crimes. Or activists on either side of controversial issues. If banks start screening for political risk more aggressively, access to basic financial services could become contingent on political acceptability.

The counterargument is equally compelling: banks have legitimate reasons to avoid customers who create legal or reputational risks. They're private companies with shareholders to protect. But when a handful of major banks control most of the financial system, their private decisions have public consequences.