Trump Organization Sues Capital One Over Account Closures, Alleging Political Bias

The Trump Organization has filed a lawsuit against Capital One, accusing the bank of unjustly terminating over 300 bank accounts belonging to the company and members of the Trump family in 2021. The lawsuit, filed in the Circuit Court of the Eleventh Judicial Circuit for Miami-Dade County, Florida, alleges that Capital One’s actions were motivated by political bias and a desire to distance itself from President Donald Trump’s conservative views.

Plaintiffs in the case include Eric Trump, the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, DJT Holdings, DJT Holdings Managing Member, and DTTM Operations. The lawsuit claims that Capital One provided no justification or recourse for the account closures, which impacted millions of dollars belonging to the Trump Organization and its affiliated entities.

According to the lawsuit, Capital One notified the plaintiffs on March 8, 2021, that the accounts would be closed on June 7, 2021. The lawsuit further alleges that Capital One’s decision was final and that the bank failed to provide any remedy or alternative.

The Trump Organization argues that Capital One profited significantly from its relationship with the company, citing "substantial deposits, impeccable creditworthiness, and the prestige associated with having a business relationship with President Trump." The lawsuit claims that the bank’s decision to terminate the accounts was a unilateral one made without advance notice.

The lawsuit alleges that the Trump Organization has suffered considerable financial harm and losses due to the account closures, impacting its ability to transact and access its monies. Furthermore, the plaintiffs believe that Capital One’s actions were motivated by "political and social motivations" and the bank’s "unsubstantiated, ‘woke’ beliefs."

The lawsuit frames Capital One’s actions as part of a growing trend of "de-banking," where financial institutions allegedly cut off access to banking services based on a consumer’s political views. The plaintiffs argue that Capital One’s conduct is an example of a "systemic, subversive industry practice that aims to coerce the public to shift and re-align political views."

Eric Trump, speaking to Fox News Digital, condemned the bank’s actions, describing them as "egregious and damaging and wrong in the United States of America." He stated that the Trump Organization would hold corporations accountable for canceling accounts based on political bias. He highlighted the difficulty in changing over 300 bank accounts and emphasized that the accounts belonged to hotels, golf courses, residential and commercial buildings, retail outlets, skating rinks, and parking garages, none of which were political entities.

The lawsuit aims to redress the harm suffered by the plaintiffs and their affiliated entities and shed light on what it describes as a matter of great public interest and importance. Eric Trump vowed to hold accountable major corporations that seek to inflict harm on people with opposing views, stating that this lawsuit is "just the beginning."

Sources have indicated that other banks, including Chase, Bank of America, and TD Bank, also terminated accounts associated with Trump at the time. These institutions could potentially face similar legal action in the future.

A Capital One spokesperson responded to the allegations, stating that "Capital One has not and does not close customer accounts for political reasons." However, the lawsuit alleges that this statement contradicts their internal actions.

The case highlights concerns about the potential for financial institutions to discriminate against customers based on their political beliefs. Supporters of the lawsuit view it as a crucial step in preventing the "weaponization" of corporate America against individuals and organizations with differing political views. Critics argue that banks have the right to choose their customers and that the Trump Organization’s lawsuit is an attempt to stifle free speech.

The lawsuit comes amid increasing scrutiny of "de-banking" practices in the United States. Some lawmakers have expressed concerns that financial institutions are unfairly targeting individuals and organizations with conservative or right-leaning views. The House Oversight Committee has stated they have evidence of conservative de-banking and hinted at investigation into these practices. Senate banking committees are hearing testimony of de-banking and labeling the practice as "extremely disruptive".

This case is likely to be closely watched as it raises important questions about the power and responsibility of financial institutions and the extent to which they can consider political beliefs when making business decisions. The outcome could have significant implications for the future of banking and the relationship between financial institutions and their customers.