Brace yourself for a financial plot twist straight out of a political thriller: new reports reveal that Biden administration regulators allegedly pressured banks to sever ties with Donald Trump after the Jan. 6, 2021, events, as the Post Millennial reports.
Following the controversial aftermath of that day, whispers of “debanking” efforts targeting Trump have surfaced, with claims of subtle yet intense pressure from federal financial overseers like the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, the FDIC, and the Federal Reserve, ultimately leading numerous banks to cut ties with the former president.
Let’s roll back the clock to early 2021, when Trump found himself on the outs with the banking world just months after leaving office. According to a report from the New York Post, at least 10 financial institutions decided to part ways with him. Seems like some folks in high places weren’t keen on keeping his business.
Regulators and reputational risk
Bank officials have pointed fingers at Biden administration regulators, alleging they wielded “reputational risk” rules as a weapon to push a political agenda. This wasn’t just about Trump — industries like cryptocurrency, gun-related businesses, and certain conservative religious groups were reportedly in the crosshairs too. Turns out, even multibillion-dollar real estate empires like Trump’s weren’t immune to this financial cold shoulder.
No, there wasn’t a glaring memo screaming “cancel Trump” pinned to a bank bulletin board. But as the New York Post noted, “The banks say the pressure was more subtle but still real.” Subtle or not, the message was clear: drop these clients, or face heightened scrutiny, harassment, and potential fines.
Banks apparently decided it wasn’t worth the regulatory headache. Even for a high roller like Trump, the risk of enforcement actions outweighed the reward of keeping his accounts. Who needs that kind of drama when you’re already juggling billions?
Trump’s banking woes hit hard
Trump didn’t hold back when sharing his side of the story in a CNBC interview, declaring, “JPMorgan Chase gave me 20 days to move hundreds of millions of dollars in cash to a different bank.” That’s not exactly the kind of customer service you expect when you’re dealing in nine figures. Sounds more like a financial eviction notice.
In the same interview, Trump added, “When I approached Bank of America to deposit a billion dollars-plus, the bank declined.” A billion dollars turned away? That’s the kind of rejection that stings, even for someone with Trump’s deep pockets.
The fallout didn’t stop there — Trump’s company took legal action against Capital One, filing a lawsuit claiming the bank shuttered over 300 accounts without a clear explanation. Capital One, for its part, denied any political motivations behind the closures. Still, the timing raises eyebrows, doesn’t it?
Executive order emerges
Fast forward to last Thursday, when Trump decided enough was enough and signed an executive order to tackle these debanking practices. The order aims to prevent federal regulators from endorsing policies that let financial institutions deny services based on political or religious beliefs, or even lawful business activities. It’s a bold move to level the playing field.
The White House chimed in, stating, “Federal regulators do not promote policies and practices that allow financial institutions to deny or restrict services based on political beliefs, religious beliefs, or lawful business activities, ensuring fair access to banking for all Americans.” Nice words, but actions speak louder, and many are skeptical after the banking blacklist saga. If fairness was the goal, why the behind-the-scenes pressure in the first place?
Let’s be real: the idea of regulators nudging banks to ditch clients over political disagreements feels like a dangerous overreach. If you can’t trust a bank to hold your money without playing ideological gatekeeper, what’s next — denying mortgages based on your voting record? It’s a slippery slope, and one worth watching closely.
A wake-up call for financial freedom
For conservatives and anyone wary of government overreach, this story is a glaring reminder of how power can be wielded quietly but effectively. The lack of a “smoking gun” memo doesn’t erase the reality of what banks described as real, albeit subtle, coercion. It’s less about conspiracy and more about a creeping agenda that punishes dissent.
Trump’s executive order might be a step toward reining in these practices, but the battle for fair access to financial services is far from over. For every policy push, there’s a counter-push, and those who value individual freedom over bureaucratic meddling will need to stay vigilant. After all, turns out actions — or subtle pressures — do have consequences.
At the end of the day, this isn’t just about one man or his billions; it’s about ensuring the financial system doesn’t become a tool for political vendettas. Whether you’re a Trump supporter or not, the principle of equal access to banking should matter to everyone. Let’s hope this executive order sparks a broader conversation about keeping politics out of our pocketbooks.
Click this link for the original source of this article.
Author: Mae Slater
This content is courtesy of, and owned and copyrighted by, https://www.conservativejournalreview.com and its author. This content is made available by use of the public RSS feed offered by the host site and is used for educational purposes only. If you are the author or represent the host site and would like this content removed now and in the future, please contact USSANews.com using the email address in the Contact page found in the website menu.
