Capital One asks judge to dismiss Trump Organization lawsuit over closed bank accounts

The bank says hundreds of accounts were closed after an anti-money laundering review, rejecting claims the decision was politically motivated.

Capital One says it closed hundreds of Trump Organization bank accounts in 2021 after a months-long anti-money laundering review, rejecting claims that the decision was politically motivated. The bank is asking a federal judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Trump Organization, arguing it acted within its contractual rights and federal banking laws.

In new court filings, the bank said the accounts were closed after what it described as a lengthy anti-money laundering (AML) review conducted by its financial crimes team. According to Capital One, the decision followed “months of analysis and a careful review,” not politics. The lawsuit centers on approximately 385 accounts linked to the Trump Organization, Eric Trump, and affiliated businesses. The accounts had reportedly been maintained with Capital One for more than a decade before they were closed in 2021.

As reported by NPR, the Trump Organization argues the bank severed ties because of Donald Trump’s political fallout after Jan. 6 and used anti-money laundering concerns as a justification. Capital One denies that claim, saying the allegations rely on selective interpretations of internal records. The bank also told the court it never publicly disclosed the reasons behind the account closures and gave the Trump businesses several months, along with deadline extensions, to move their funds elsewhere. Capital One further argues that its account agreements allowed it to close accounts “at any time, for any or no reason.”

Furthermore, the bank says federal banking secrecy laws prevented it from disclosing details of any internal anti-money laundering review. A separate dispute continues over which court documents should remain sealed because they contain sensitive financial information.

The lawsuit could help define how much discretion banks have, especially when financial crime compliance reviews are involved. It also comes as political debate continues over allegations of “debanking” and the balance between anti-money laundering enforcement and political discrimination.