“Capital One says it closed Trump Organization accounts over money-laundering concerns”
What actually happened
Capital One filed a motion in Florida federal court asking a judge to permanently dismiss the Trump Organization's lawsuit over roughly 385 accounts closed in mid-2021. Capital One's lawyers wrote that the bank's own filings and the Trump businesses' allegations "make clear that Capital One closed Plaintiffs' accounts for anti-money laundering ('AML') reasons." The Trump Organization maintains the closures were political retaliation tied to January 6.
Key facts
- The case centers on roughly 385 accounts tied to the Trump Organization, Eric Trump and a collection of affiliated businesses, including a winery, a bottled-water company and a golf course developer, that banked with Capital One for more than a decade before the accounts were shut down in mid-2021.
- Capital One said the decision followed "months of analysis and a careful review" by its financial-crimes team, staffed by employees with "decades of law enforcement experience."
- Judge Roy Altman already dismissed an earlier version of this lawsuit in March 2026 on similar grounds, ruling a bank's broad discretion clause generally can't be second-guessed in court.
- Capital One's lawyers argue the Trump theory rests on "cherry-picked quotations unsupported by the full context" of the bank's own records.
- The filings suggest the Trump Organization and affiliated entities were given no opportunity to address any money-laundering or compliance concerns before the accounts' closures.
- A parallel lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase, filed in January 2026 over accounts closed in the same period, makes similar debanking claims.
What to watch for
Watch whether Altman treats this dismissal bid as final; Capital One is asking this time for dismissal without another chance to refile, a harder line than March's ruling. Also watch the sealed "January 6, 2021: The Political Trigger" section of the Trump Organization's complaint, since its contents (if ever unsealed) could substantiate or undercut the retaliation claim entirely.
