“He debanked me.” That blunt line — spoken by former President Donald Trump in Davos this week — is the opening beat of a lawsuit filed in Miami‑Dade County on Jan. 22, 2026 that seeks at least $5 billion in damages from JPMorgan Chase and its CEO, Jamie Dimon.
The complaint says the bank notified Trump and a constellation of his businesses in February 2021 that their accounts would be closed with 60 days’ notice. Plaintiffs argue the timing and motive were political: the account closures came after the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the Capitol and Trump’s departure from the White House. The suit accuses JPMorgan of placing Trump, his family and affiliated entities on a so‑called “blacklist” that the complaint says is accessible to federally regulated banks — a move the plaintiffs say chilled other lenders from doing business with them.
What the lawsuit claims
The filing lays out several legal theories: trade libel, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, violations of Florida’s consumer protection laws, and a string of allegations tying the account closures to political animus. It says the plaintiffs only learned after the fact that their accounts had been closed because of “political discrimination” and asserts that the blacklist was authorized by Dimon.
The complaint does not provide documentary proof in public filings showing the bank explicitly said "political reasons," nor does it name the blacklist with an established, formal title. Instead, it points to the sequence of events, alleged internal decisions, and what it describes as a pattern of banks distancing themselves from conservative clients as the evidence of motive.
JPMorgan's response and the bank's explanation
A JPMorgan spokeswoman said the lawsuit is without merit and that the bank will defend itself in court. She emphasized that JPMorgan does not close accounts for political or religious reasons, but rather when accounts create legal or regulatory risk. The bank has publicly urged multiple administrations to change rules that it says force hard choices for financial institutions and has warned against what it calls the "weaponization of the banking sector."
The presence of regulators and compliance obligations matters here: large banks routinely weigh not only client politics but also anti‑money‑laundering rules, sanctions exposure, and reputational regulatory risk when deciding whether to maintain a relationship.
Political backdrop and timing
The suit lands at the intersection of law and politics. Trump has repeatedly complained about “debanking” across his second term and even issued an executive order aimed at punishing banks that restrict services for political or religious reasons. Yet U.S. law does not create a constitutional right to a bank account; financial institutions are private actors subject to federal rules and heavy regulatory scrutiny.
The filing also came shortly after Dimon, speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, criticized a Trump proposal to cap credit card interest rates at 10% as potentially disastrous — an exchange that adds color to the public friction between the two figures.
How experts see it
Reactions from legal and regulatory scholars were swift and skeptical. Peter Conti‑Brown, a professor who studies financial regulation, called the suit “frivolous,” pointing to Trump’s long public record of business disputes and suggesting banks are entitled to refuse clients who represent financial or compliance risk. Jeremy Kress, a business law professor, described the lawsuit as "pretty unusual," noting the irony of a president suing a bank while his chosen regulators pursue deregulatory agendas.
From a plaintiff’s perspective, the key factual question will be whether Trump and his companies can prove that account closures stemmed from unlawful political discrimination rather than the bank’s assessment of regulatory or reputational risk.
What this means going forward
The case is likely to turn on documents and testimony: internal bank communications, compliance memos, and whether the plaintiffs can substantiate the existence of a coordinated "blacklist" and tie it to Dimon. For JPMorgan, routine discovery could pull into public view how major banks make high‑stakes decisions about client relationships. For Trump, the lawsuit continues a broader legal strategy of using courts to challenge perceived institutional opposition — and to seek large damages.
Courtroom battles over bank de‑risking are not new, but the political profile of the parties guarantees this one will be watched closely, both for the narrow legal questions it raises and for what it could reveal about the balance between private compliance decisions and political pressure.
The case will proceed in Florida state court, and both sides have signaled they expect a fight. That will likely mean a slow, document‑heavy process before any decisive ruling — and plenty of rhetorical skirmishing in the press and on the campaign trail as the litigation unfolds.