Capital One has formally stated in a court filing that its 2021 decision to close hundreds of accounts linked to the Trump Organization was based on an anti-money laundering (AML) review, not political motivations. The disclosure came in a motion filed on July 31, 2026, as part of a lawsuit brought by the Trump Organization in March 2025 alleging unlawful debanking.
Capital One’s stated rationale for the closures
In the filing, Capital One argued that the accounts were terminated following months of analysis by its AML team, which includes professionals with decades of law enforcement experience. The bank stated that the closures were conducted in accordance with bank policies and regulatory guidance, and that no public reason was provided at the time. The Trump Organization was notified in March 2021 that the accounts would be closed by June 7, 2021, with extensions granted upon request.
The bank’s motion seeks to dismiss the lawsuit with prejudice, asserting that the plaintiffs have failed to present a legally viable claim. Capital One also disputed the Trump Organization’s allegations of political bias, calling them “misguided” and based on “cherry-picked quotations unsupported by the full context.”
Trump Organization’s counterarguments
The Trump Organization and affiliated entities filed the lawsuit in Miami-Dade Circuit Court, alleging that Capital One’s decision was politically motivated and aimed at distancing itself from then-President Donald Trump following the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot. The plaintiffs claimed the closures were part of a broader pattern of “woke” banking practices targeting conservative figures.
Regulatory and legal context
Capital One’s motion does not accuse the Trump Organization of money laundering but emphasizes that the decision followed an internal AML review. The filing comes amid broader scrutiny of banking practices, including a $390 million fine levied against Capital One by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) in 2020 for deficiencies in its AML program.
The case raises questions about the intersection of banking regulations and political considerations, with both sides presenting competing interpretations of the same event. The court has not yet issued a ruling on Capital One’s motion to dismiss.