Remember when conservatives warned that banks were becoming political weapons? That if they could debank a former president, they could debank anyone?
Yeah, well. The former president is back in the Oval Office. And he’s not forgetting.
Trump dropped the hammer Saturday on Truth Social: he’s suing JPMorgan Chase for “incorrectly and inappropriately DEBANKING me after the January 6th Protest.” The lawsuit is coming within two weeks.
Jamie Dimon’s weekend just got a lot worse.
The Setup
The Wall Street Journal ran a story claiming Trump offered Dimon the Federal Reserve chairmanship. Trump says that’s garbage—”totally untrue”—and blasted the Journal for not bothering to verify before publishing.
But the real news wasn’t the denial. It was the announcement that followed.
Trump claims JPMorgan gave him 20 days to move “hundreds of millions of dollars in cash” after January 6. Just… find another bank. Pack up nine figures and get out.
He also says Bank of America refused to let him deposit over a billion dollars.
A billion. With a B.
These aren’t fringe accusations from some random conservative getting his checking account closed. This is a sitting president describing coordinated financial warfare against him by America’s largest banks.
The Pattern
Trump isn’t the only one with receipts.
The Trump Organization already sued Capital One in March 2025 for allegedly closing more than 300 accounts after January 6 “because it believed that the political tide at the moment favored doing so.” Capital One denied it, filed to dismiss, called it all false.
Standard playbook. Deny, delay, hope it goes away.
But then Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier opened an investigation into JPMorgan over debanking Trump Media & Technology Group. And here’s where it gets spicy: investigators found evidence the bank coordinated with the Biden Justice Department’s “Arctic Frost” investigation.
Trump Media CEO Devin Nunes raised an obvious question: how could JPMorgan debank his company based on January 6 when the company didn’t even exist on that date?
Someone’s lying. And now there’s a Justice Department that might actually want to find out who.
Dimon’s Dance
Jamie Dimon spent last week trying to thread an impossible needle.
At a Chamber of Commerce event, he rejected any possibility of becoming Fed chairman with theatrical emphasis: “Absolutely, positively no chance, no way, no how, for any reason.”
Treasury Secretary? Different story. He’d “take the call.”
Translation: please don’t investigate me too hard, Mr. President.
Dimon also warned that political interference with the Fed would “have reverse consequences” and drive interest rates higher. A veiled threat dressed up as sage advice. Classic banker move—wrap self-interest in economic expertise and hope nobody notices.
But here’s the thing about threatening a guy you allegedly tried to financially destroy: it doesn’t work as well when he’s the president and you’re about to be a defendant.
The Bigger Picture
Banks have spent years insisting they don’t close accounts for political reasons. They follow the law. They respond to subpoenas. They support fixing “broken policies.”
Corporate speak for: we did what the government told us, so technically it’s not our fault.
That defense might have worked when the government telling them what to do was the Biden administration. It’s considerably less compelling when the new administration is the victim of those orders.
Trump has the Justice Department. He has state attorneys general digging through records. He has subpoena power and a very personal grudge.
JPMorgan’s spokesperson said the bank “follows the law in responding to subpoenas from the government.” Cool. There are about to be a lot of new subpoenas. From a different government.
What Happens Next
The lawsuit drops in two weeks. Discovery will be brutal. Internal emails, coordination with federal agencies, decision memos explaining why America’s most famous businessman suddenly needed to find a new bank.
Dimon can protest Fed independence all he wants. But he’s not facing a policy debate. He’s facing a plaintiff with unlimited resources, a lifetime of litigation experience, and the executive branch at his back.
Debanking was always a weapon. The banks just forgot that weapons can change hands.