DOJ Targets Banks Over Alleged Political Debanking

On June 10, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) issued subpoenas to a group of major banks, namely Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, as part of a probe into whether these institutions closed or limited accounts for customers based on their political views or activities. The request, received by the banks’ legal teams, demanded detailed records that could reveal patterns of political discrimination.

The term debanking refers to the abrupt closure of an account without prior warning. Historically, banks cite regulatory or legal risk as the basis for such actions. However, critics argue that a growing number of customers who are politically active—especially supporters of former President Donald Trump—have reported account closures tied to the 2021 Capitol riot or other political events. The DOJ’s investigation seeks to confirm or refute these claims.

Key points of the subpoena include requests for lists of closed accounts, the reasons provided by the banks for each closure, and any internal communications regarding the decision to seize banking services. The DOJ is also examining whether the banks’ decisions violated the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRRMA), which allows for financial penalties for fraudulent or discriminatory behavior.

Bank responses emphasize that their primary mandate is risk management. In a statement issued in January, JPMorgan Chase argued: We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company. We regret having to do so, but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to do so. The bank declined to comment further on the DOJ's subpoenas.

This subpoena follows a series of lawsuits filed by Trump and the Trump Organization against banks that allegedly terminated their accounts after January 6. Notably, Trump’s executive order in August last year targeted banks that engaged in “politicized or unlawful debanking.” The order renews federal pressure on these institutions to uphold non‑discriminatory practices.

The DOJ has highlighted that the probe is part of broader regulatory scrutiny, including recent guidance by banking regulators that aim to dismantle the concept of “reputation risk” as a factor in determining account eligibility. This move seeks to push banks toward objective criteria rather than subjective political judgments.

While the DOJ’s investigation remains in progress, the implications are far-reaching. Regulations may become stricter, and banks may face financial penalties if evidence shows systematic political bias. Moreover, the legal pressure could shape how banks market their services and engage with politically vocal communities.

In conclusion, the DOJ's subpoenas signify a pivotal step toward ensuring that banking practices align with anti‑discrimination principles. The outcome of this investigation will likely set a precedent for how financial institutions manage accounts in politically fraught contexts and may reinforce the necessity of transparency and compliance in the banking sector.