The Trump Organization has accused Capital One of “de-banking” the company by closing over 300 of its accounts shortly after the unrest at the US Capitol on January 6th, according to legal filings that allege the bank engaged in “egregious conduct”. The lawsuit, shared on X by Eric Trump, frames the closures as a “clear attack on free speech and free enterprise that flies in the face of the bedrock principles and freedoms that define our country”.
In a statement, the Trump Organization said: “The arbitrary closure of these accounts, without justifiable cause, reflects a broader effort to silence and undermine the success of the Trump Organization and those who dare to express their political views.”
“By filing this lawsuit, we seek to hold Capital One accountable for the millions of dollars in damages they caused, not just to our company, but to the many dozens of properties, hundreds of tenants and thousands of Trump Organization employees who relied on these accounts for their livelihoods.”
The lawsuit also warns of the precedent set by such actions, arguing that “businesses should not be targeted or punished for their political affiliations”.
Capital One, the ninth-largest bank in the United States, has denied any political motivation behind the account closures. A spokesperson said: “Capital One has not and does not close customer accounts for political reasons.”
These cases involving the Trump family are just two of many fuelling growing concern over ‘debanking’.
Melania Trump has also claimed that she was debanked. In an interview with Fox News’ Maria Bartiromo, the First Lady recounted how she had been informed without warning that her bank would no longer do business with her. She also said an email distribution service had abruptly terminated her agreement, describing it as part of a broader trend of political retribution.
This latest controversy highlights the growing concern over ‘debanking’, a phenomenon that, in multiple recent cases, has acted as a form of financial censorship. Once a niche issue, it has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over free speech and corporate power.
Financial institutions, in thrall to the ideology of ‘stakeholder capitalism’ or under pressure from EDI-focused corporate leadership and regulators, appear increasingly willing to deny essential banking services to individuals and organisations whose lawful views – whether political, religious, or social – are deemed controversial or out of step with prevailing orthodoxy.
This concern is no longer confined to one side of the political spectrum.
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, a leading progressive voice in Congress, recently urged Donald Trump to take action against what she described as the exclusion of “too many Americans” from the financial system. In a letter, she called for protections against account closures based on “overdraft fees, religious affiliation, or political beliefs,” stressing that “consumers need access to a bank account to survive in today’s economy”. She cited cases involving Muslim-Americans, charities and even people who had the same name as a former prisoner.
Momentum for legislative intervention is building – at least in the US.
In recent years, Representative Jim Jordan’s House Judiciary Committee has investigated federal agencies’ involvement in “receiving information about American citizens without legal process”. The inquiry revealed that federal investigators asked banks to filter customer transactions using terms like “MAGA” and “Trump” – ostensibly as part of an investigation into the January 6th Capitol riot. Transactions involving purchases of religious texts, including the Bible, were also reportedly flagged.
Senator Tim Scott, the Republican chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, has also now proposed a bill that would prevent financial institutions from citing “reputational risk” as a reason to refuse or close accounts. “It’s clear that federal regulators have abused reputational risk by carrying out a political agenda against federally legal businesses,” Scott said. “This legislation… is the first step in ending debanking once and for all.”
Concerns over financial censorship have intensified in light of the shift towards digital banking and the prospect of a cashless economy. As transactions become increasingly electronic, banks and payment processors wield even greater power to cut off individuals and organisations from the financial system. The concern is that, under the guise of combating ‘misinformation’ or enforcing ‘inclusivity’, financial institutions are assuming an extrajudicial role in regulating political expression.
Instances of financial censorship are no longer rare. In February 2022, the Canadian government froze the bank accounts of anti-vaccine mandate protestors, with Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland confirming that banks were instructed to target not only activists but also those who donated to their cause. There was no need for a court order, no due process, and no appeal.
Financial services companies have also taken action against individuals and groups across the ideological spectrum. PayPal has removed accounts belonging to left-wing alternative media outlets MintPress News and Consortium News for questioning Western policy on Ukraine, while also deplatforming the evolutionary biologist and gender-critical writer Colin Wright. In the UK, PayPal shut down accounts belonging to the Free Speech Union and UsforThem, a parents’ group that campaigned against school closures during the pandemic, citing vague concerns about “the nature of its activities”.
More recently, online fundraising platform Ko-Fi removed accounts belonging to feminist campaigners critical of gender ideology. Nigel Farage, the former leader of the Brexit Party, had his Coutts bank account closed after the bank’s risk committee determined that his views on Brexit, immigration, and Net Zero “did not align” with its “values”. Other former Brexit Party figures, including Henrik Overgaard-Nielsen and Baroness Claire Fox, have also reported being debanked without clear justification.
In India, amid a series of legal sanctions and active investigations into leading opponents of Narendra Modi’s government, critics and rights groups accused India’s ruling BJP party of using law enforcement agencies to freeze the bank accounts of the main opposition party, Congress, just weeks before national elections began in April 2024.
Last year, German Interior Minister Nancy Faeser proposed freezing the bank accounts of those found to have donated money to any group classified as “far-right.” The proposal, however, left key questions unanswered: how “right-wing extremism” would be defined, whether Germany’s left-leaning tripartite coalition government would determine that definition, and what specific penalties would be imposed on donors to right-wing organisations.
However, Faeser made one aspect explicit: “No one who donates to a right-wing extremist party should remain undetected… Those who mock the state must deal with a strong state.”
As financial institutions assume an increasingly active role in regulating political discourse, the question of who controls access to banking services is becoming one of the most pressing free speech issues of the digital age. While banks insist that account closures are determined by business risk rather than ideology, the pattern of de-banking cases – affecting individuals across the political spectrum – has reinforced fears that the financial system is being weaponised against dissent.
