On Jan. 24, a $5 billion civil suit was lodged in Miami-Dade County state court by U.S. President Donald Trump against JPMorgan Chase and Chief Executive Officer Jamie Dimon. The complaint centers on the banks decision in April 2021 to shut accounts belonging to several Trump-associated businesses that had been banking with JPMorgan for decades. Trump alleges the move was politically motivated and seeks damages under Florida law.
Allegations and legal basis
The suit contends that JPMorgan informed Trump of the account closures roughly a month after the January 6, 2021 breach of the U.S. Capitol and that the banks actions were prompted by politics rather than legitimate business or compliance concerns. The complaint invokes Florida statutes that prohibit unfair trade practices and alleges the bank acted in bad faith.
Central to the complaint is an accusation that Dimon directed the creation of a malicious "blacklist" - a list Trump says was circulated to warn other banks against doing business with the Trump Organization, members of the Trump family and the president personally. Trump argues the publication of that list amounted to trade libel under Florida law and asserts significant financial and reputational harm to his businesses as a consequence.
Trumps filing notes prior public exchanges in which Dimon criticized the then-former presidents immigration proposals and a plan to cap credit card interest rates. JPMorgan has rejected the lawsuit's claims, saying the complaint lacks merit and reiterating that the bank closes accounts that create legal or regulatory exposure.
What Trump must prove
The substantive dispute at trial will likely focus on whether JPMorgan terminated the accounts because of Trumps political viewpoints. Banking contracts typically grant financial institutions broad discretion to end relationships, often without providing customers a reason. That dynamic makes it difficult for accountholders to challenge terminations, particularly when closures are based on legal or compliance concerns such as suspected money laundering.
Under the complaint, JPMorgan provided a 60-day notice of account closure but did not state a justification. Legal commentators referenced in the suit conclude that while banks may lawfully terminate accounts for illicit activity, terminating an account because of a customer's protected characteristic - for example religion or ethnicity - could be an unfair trade practice or bad faith. They suggest that canceling an account due solely to political viewpoint would likely be impermissible, although an institution might lawfully act if an accountholder's views so thoroughly undermined trust that continued banking posed unacceptable risk.
Trump can argue his political positions were within the mainstream, citing the more than 70 million votes he received in the November 2020 election, and thus not the sort of views that would destroy a banks ability to trust the accountholder. The complaint frames this as part of proving discriminatory motive rather than permissible risk management.
Trade libel claim and the alleged blacklist
The trade libel portion of the complaint rests on the existence and character of the alleged JPMorgan blacklist. Trump portrays that list as a mechanism reserved for clients that had engaged in serious misconduct or other behavior warranting termination of banking services. He asserts his accounts were in good standing prior to being listed, and that the list and any communications tied to it falsely disparaged his business standing.
The complaint references subsequent legal developments that bear on public perception of Trumps businesses. It notes that in February 2024 a New York state judge found Trump and his corporate entities liable for civil fraud in a case brought by the state attorney general, and that a state appeals court later vacated a half-billion dollar penalty without wholly overturning the fraud finding. Both sides in that matter have appealed. The lawsuit before the Florida court does not add new factual findings about those cases but cites them in describing the environment in which banks made decisions.
Trade libel claims typically involve allegations that a defendant disparaged a plaintiffs product or services to gain a commercial advantage. The suit will therefore hinge on proving the blacklist existed and that JPMorgan communicated false statements to other banks that resulted in demonstrable harm to Trumps businesses.
Procedural pathway and likely defenses
The case began in Florida state court, but JPMorgan may attempt to transfer the litigation to federal court, a common move by corporate defendants. The bank can be expected to seek early dismissal by arguing the claims are speculative and unsupported by facts sufficient to sustain the complaint. A successful dismissal would prevent discovery; if the suit survives a motion to dismiss, Trumps legal team would gain the ability to compel documents and testimony from inside the bank through discovery requests.
Capital One is cited in the filing as defending a similar lawsuit brought by Trump-related businesses and is noted to have moved that matter to federal court. That parallel keeps open the possibility that JPMorgan will pursue the same procedural route.
Settlement prospects and damages
Given JPMorgans status as a heavily regulated institution, a failure to secure dismissal could increase pressure to resolve the case before trial. Damages sought by the plaintiff total $5 billion, but actual recovery, the complaint acknowledges, would depend on the measurable disruption to Trumps enterprises caused by having to reestablish banking relationships elsewhere. The president has asserted that the closures compelled him to rely on "small banks all over the place."
The filing sits alongside other lawsuits the president has pursued against media organizations since his return to the White House; some of those suits have settled quickly while others remain active.
Length and scope
This article outlines the factual claims and procedural questions identified in the complaint without adding new facts or legal conclusions beyond what is contained in the filing and referenced public rulings.