Bank Seeks Dismissal of Trump Organisation Lawsuit
Capital One has defended its decision to close more than 300 accounts connected to the Trump Organisation.
The bank said the accounts were terminated following a detailed anti-money laundering review. It rejected allegations that political bias influenced the decision.
Capital One presented its explanation in a new filing before a federal court in Miami. The bank is seeking the dismissal of a lawsuit brought by the Trump Organisation and Eric Trump.
The filing provides the clearest public explanation yet for the closure of the accounts.
Capital One said its anti-money laundering team conducted months of analysis before recommending that the banking relationships should end.
The bank said the review followed its internal policies and federal regulatory guidance.
It also said transaction patterns associated with the accounts matched types of activity identified in federal banking guidance as requiring closer examination.
However, Capital One has not accused the Trump Organisation or its executives of committing money laundering.
An anti-money laundering review does not establish that a crime occurred. Banks regularly examine customer activity to determine whether it creates regulatory, legal or financial risk.
Capital One said its decision was based on compliance concerns rather than the political views, religion or public positions of the account holders.
Trump Organisation Claims Accounts Were Closed for Political Reasons
Capital One notified the Trump Organisation in March 2021 that it planned to close more than 300 affiliated accounts.
The decision came shortly after the January 6 attack on the United States Capitol.
The Trump Organisation and Eric Trump filed a lawsuit against the bank in March 2025.
They claimed Capital One had targeted the family business because of its opposition to Donald Trump and his political movement.
The lawsuit accused the bank of supporting progressive political views and attempting to benefit from the political environment that followed the Capitol violence.
The plaintiffs described the closure as unlawful “debanking.”
Debanking generally refers to a financial institution ending or refusing services to a customer. The issue becomes particularly controversial when customers claim they were rejected because of their political or religious beliefs.
Capital One rejected those allegations as misguided.
The bank said the Trump Organisation relied on selected quotations from internal documents while ignoring their wider context.
It argued that the plaintiffs had not presented enough evidence to show that the accounts were closed because of political discrimination.
The federal court has dismissed two earlier versions of the complaint. However, the judge allowed the plaintiffs to amend and resubmit their claims.
Capital One said the latest version, filed in July, contained the same basic weaknesses as the previous complaints.
The Trump Organisation and Capital One did not immediately provide additional public comments following the latest filing.
Case Adds Pressure to Growing US Debanking Debate
The legal dispute comes during a wider confrontation between President Donald Trump’s administration and major American banks.
Trump and other conservative politicians have repeatedly accused financial institutions of denying services to customers because of their political or religious beliefs.
Banks generally deny making account decisions on ideological grounds.
They argue that closures are usually connected to compliance requirements, legal exposure, regulatory concerns or financial crime risks.
Trump signed an executive order in August 2025 seeking to prevent discriminatory debanking.
The order increased pressure on financial regulators to examine whether banks had denied services based on political or religious considerations.
Capital One has also disclosed that it is responding to government inquiries linked to the administration’s fair-banking policy.
Trump separately filed a $5 billion lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase and its chief executive, Jamie Dimon, in January 2026.
That lawsuit similarly accused the bank of closing Trump-related accounts for political reasons after the Capitol attack.
JPMorgan rejected the allegations and said it does not terminate customer relationships because of political or religious beliefs.
The cases have placed major banks in a difficult position.
Financial institutions must follow strict anti-money laundering and customer-monitoring regulations. At the same time, they face increasing legal and political scrutiny when they close accounts linked to prominent public figures.
Filing Does Not Accuse Trump Business of Criminal Conduct
Capital One’s use of anti-money laundering language is significant, but it should not be interpreted as an allegation of criminal wrongdoing.
The bank did not say the Trump Organisation laundered money.
Instead, it argued that its compliance specialists identified transaction patterns and risks that justified ending the banking relationships under company policy.
Banks can close accounts even when no criminal charge has been filed.
They may act when activity exceeds their risk tolerance or requires monitoring that the institution is unwilling to continue.
The latest filing could become central to the court’s decision on whether the lawsuit should proceed.
If the judge dismisses the amended complaint, the Trump Organisation may seek another amendment or challenge the ruling.
Should the case survive dismissal, the plaintiffs could seek internal bank documents and testimony concerning the account review.
The dispute also carries wider consequences for the banking industry.
A ruling in favour of the Trump Organisation could make financial institutions more cautious when ending politically sensitive customer relationships.
A ruling supporting Capital One could strengthen banks’ ability to rely on compliance reviews when defending account closures.
For now, the case remains unresolved.
Capital One maintains that regulatory concerns drove its decision. The Trump Organisation continues to argue that political discrimination was the real motive.
