Capital One Financial Corp. told a federal court that its anti-money-laundering (AML) review — not political bias — drove the closure of more than 300 Trump Organization accounts, according to Business-Today. The bank filed the explanation in a motion to dismiss a lawsuit brought by the Trump Organization and Eric Trump in March 2025.
The dispute stems from a March 2021 notification, when Capital One said it would close more than 300 affiliated accounts held by the Trump Organization, the privately owned conglomerate overseeing Trump's hotels, golf courses, real estate and other ventures. For finance executives and treasury professionals, the case underscores a core feature of US banking: lenders can close corporate accounts after internal compliance and risk reviews when a relationship no longer satisfies anti-money-laundering or regulatory standards, Business-Today reported.
Lawsuit and the bank's defense
The Trump Organization and Eric Trump sued Capital One in March 2025 in a Florida federal court, alleging the bank unlawfully closed the accounts because of its "woke" beliefs and to align with the political climate following the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol. The plaintiffs argued the closures amounted to discriminatory "debanking" and sought damages.
Capital One, however, said the allegations of political bias are "misguided" and based on "cherry-picked quotations unsupported by the full context" of documents submitted to the court, according to Business-Today. In its Friday filing, the bank argued the latest complaint "suffers from the same fundamental flaws" as two prior versions, both already dismissed by the federal court in Miami.
"Documents and Plaintiffs' own allegations make clear that Capital One closed Plaintiffs' accounts for anti-money laundering ('AML') reasons," the filing said.
The filing marks the first time a bank has formally stated in court that AML concerns were behind its decision to close the Trump Organization's accounts, Business-Today reported.
Compliance rationale
Capital One did not directly accuse the Trump Organization of engaging in illegal money laundering. Instead, the bank said the decision followed "months of analysis and a careful review" by its AML experts, conducted in line with internal policies and regulatory guidance, and was not politically motivated.
"The transaction patterns identified by Capital One are among the types of activity flagged by federal banking guidance," the filing said. Large companies often operate hundreds of bank accounts across different entities and properties, and US banks can close accounts after compliance reviews if the relationship no longer meets AML or regulatory standards.
Political and regulatory backdrop
The dispute comes as the Trump administration has intensified scrutiny of alleged "debanking" by major financial institutions. According to Business-Today, Trump signed an executive order in August 2025 barring discriminatory debanking and, earlier this year, filed a separate lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase on similar grounds.
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Jan. 6, 2021 | Attack on the US Capitol, cited in the Trump Organization's lawsuit |
| March 2021 | Capital One notified the Trump Organization it would close more than 300 affiliated accounts |
| March 2025 | Trump Organization and Eric Trump filed suit against Capital One in Florida federal court |
| August 2025 | Trump signed executive order barring discriminatory debanking |
| Friday | Capital One filed its motion to dismiss, citing the AML review |
Banking exposure and compliance risk
For corporate treasuries, the case illustrates the legal basis on which banks unwind account relationships for AML reasons. The bank is seeking dismissal of the lawsuit, and the federal court in Miami has already dismissed two earlier versions while allowing the plaintiffs to amend their complaint. In its latest filing, Capital One maintains that the complaint's charges of political bias are unsupported by the full context of the documents, Business-Today reported.
The outcome will be watched by finance executives who manage multi-entity account structures across banking partners, since the case tests how far courts will defer to banks' internal AML risk assessments in the face of debanking allegations.
Sources:
