Capital One cites anti-money laundering review in Trump account closures

Capital One has formally defended its decision to shutter hundreds of accounts linked to Donald Trump’s business empire, telling a federal court that the move followed an internal anti-money laundering review rather than any political bias. According to Reuters reporting via TheNews, the major banking firm hit back on Friday against a high-profile lawsuit, maintaining that its actions were driven strictly by internal risk compliance and standard anti-money laundering protocols.

The disclosure marks the first time Capital One has publicly linked the account closures involving the family business to anti-money laundering concerns. The legal battle forms part of a broader International Business Times report detailing how the Trump Organization and Eric Trump previously filed a lawsuit accusing the bank of debanking them for political and social reasons following the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.

In its filing seeking dismissal of the remaining claims, Capital One argued that the plaintiffs’ own allegations and documents show the accounts were closed for anti-money laundering related reasons. The bank said the decision followed months of analysis and a review by its financial-crimes compliance team, which monitors transactions for signs of money laundering, sanctions violations, fraud, and other forms of financial crime. The institution stressed that conducting such reviews is a routine part of its regulatory obligations under federal banking rules and does not, on its own, imply criminal wrongdoing by a customer.

Importantly, Capital One has not accused the Trump Organization of money laundering or any other financial offence. The filing also does not specify what, if anything, investigators identified during their review, focusing instead on legal procedure and established industry practices.

The Trump Organization's lawsuit, filed in 2025, argues that Capital One abruptly terminated more than 300 business accounts shortly after the Capitol riot because of an unfounded and misplaced belief regarding Donald Trump's political responsibility for the events of 6 January. The company claims the closures caused financial harm by disrupting banking relationships and interfering with business operations. Capital One has consistently denied those allegations, asserting that the closures resulted from ordinary compliance processes that large financial institutions routinely carry out.

Financial institutions operating in the United States are required under the Bank Secrecy Act and related federal regulations to maintain systems that monitor transactions for suspicious activity. These reviews can lead banks to continue a customer relationship, impose additional monitoring, or terminate accounts if the institution determines the relationship no longer aligns with its risk appetite. Capital One is now asking the federal court to dismiss the remaining claims, arguing that the Trump Organization has failed to demonstrate that politics drove the closures.

Key developments in the Capital One dispute

• The Trump Organization filed a lawsuit in 2025 accusing Capital One of terminating more than 300 business accounts due to political and social reasons following the January 6, 2021, Capitol attack.
• Capital One submitted a court filing on Friday arguing that the accounts were closed only after its financial-crimes compliance team reviewed activity under standard anti-money laundering procedures.
• The bank has explicitly stated it is not accusing the Trump Organization of money laundering or any criminal conduct, maintaining that compliance reviews are routine.
• The court previously dismissed several claims while allowing others to proceed, leaving the central dispute over political motivation unresolved.

The case stands as one of the most prominent examples of Donald Trump's wider campaign against what he describes as debanking. Trump has repeatedly argued that major financial institutions discriminate against conservatives and politically controversial customers by refusing services or terminating banking relationships, accusing major banks of weaponising financial regulation for political purposes throughout his second term. Supporters argue that financial institutions have become overly influenced by reputational concerns and political pressure.

Trade groups and financial institutions have consistently countered that account closures overwhelmingly stem from regulatory compliance obligations, anti-money laundering rules, sanctions screening, and risk management requirements. Whether the court ultimately accepts Capital One's argument remains uncertain. The litigation now turns on whether the bank's documented compliance process is sufficient to rebut allegations of political discrimination, or whether the Trump Organization can persuade the court that the anti-money laundering review served as a pretext.