De-Banking Update – Donald Trump files $5 billion lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase

US President Donald Trump has filed a $5 billion lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase & Co. and its chief executive Jamie Dimon, alleging that the bank unlawfully closed his personal and business accounts for political reasons. The claim, filed in Florida, is the latest high-profile example of alleged “de-banking” and comes amid growing political and regulatory scrutiny of banks’ account-closure practices in both the United States and the UK.

Throughout 2024 and 2025, we wrote extensively about issues surrounding de-banking,  including in posts entitled “What are the proposed new laws aimed at preventing de-banking?” and “Why the proposed new laws to try and prevent de-banking do not go far enough”.

We have also recently noted how de-banking continues to rise in the UK.

Unfortunately, in 2025, we continued to receive requests for assistance from individuals who had found themselves in the incredibly frustrating situation of being unfairly “de-banked” by their financial institutions.

We have followed closely the unravelling of Nigel Farage’s de-banking saga in the UK, and will now examine the circumstances of an ever higher profile individual – Donald Trump – who is alleging that he had been de-banked in the United States.

Nigel Farage – the original “de-banked”

Back in August 2023, we wrote about the conclusion of the “headline-grabbing, high-stakes banking saga that revolved around a UK politician Nigel Farage”.

We noted how the bank initially refused to share details on why the customer relationship had been terminated but had eventually provided very minimal information. Later we discussed the reports that Mr Farage was exploring the possibility of initiating private criminal proceedings against Natwest Group over the de-banking situation before finally agreeing to settle his de-banking dispute with Natwest. Although the terms of the settlement are confidential, a joint statement revealed that “Natwest Group and Nigel Farage MP are pleased to confirm that they have resolved and settled their dispute, and the bank has apologised to Mr Farage”.

While this appears to have brought this particular saga to an end, it is certainly not the end of de-banking cases more widely, as we have noted in our previous articles on this topic.

What are the facts of Donald Trump’s case?

It has been reported that the US President Donald Trump has filed a $5 billion lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase accusing them of de-banking by way of closing several of his accounts to further a political agenda. Further, the lawsuit filed in Florida has reportedly accused JPMorgan Chase of violating its own policies. JPMorgan has denied closing accounts for political or religious reasons.

This is another high-profile banking dispute that will be very interesting to watch.

What is the current situation in the UK?

As we have previously detailed, new rules have been prepared to assist customers in de-banking situations.

What are the new rules announced by the Labour Government aimed at preventing potential de-banking situations?

In our May 2025 article, we examined the new rules proposed by the Labour Government.

Broadly, we noted that the proposed new rules would extend the notice period a bank must give to a customer before closing their account (i.e. to de-bank a customer) from the current two months to 90 days.

In addition, the proposed rules would require banks, in appropriate circumstances, to provide greater transparency by giving clearer reasons for their decision to de-bank a customer.

Ultimately, the changes remained similar to those we highlighted in our March 2024 article on this topic.

What are the proposed new laws aimed at preventing de-banking?

When will the new de-banking rules come into effect?

In June 2025, we examined the anticipated implementation timeline for the new rules and confirmed that they are expected to come into effect from April 2026, subject to Parliamentary approval.

However, as we have previously explained, although the new rules will go further in addressing some of the iniquities in certain de-banking decisions, the whole approach to providing adequate access to a bank account and banking facilities needs to be radically reconsidered, making it akin to a fundamental right rather than something that can be offered (and taken away) at the whim of the banks.

What can I do to challenge a wrongful decision to close my personal and/or business bank account(s)?

In the meantime, we are receiving a growing number of requests for assistance from de-banked individuals who are adamant that they have always acted in full compliance with the relevant bank account’s Terms and Conditions and all other applicable rules and regulations.

We have previously written about how bank account closures are not an issue faced only by political figures in the UK – in reality, they affect many thousands of lawful individual and business customers every year. These cases have exposed the difficult regulatory terrain many financial institutions and their individual and business customers must navigate to gain and maintain access to basic banking services.

To assist those whose accounts have been closed, Gherson’s Financial Crime, Investigations and Regulatory team have previously published the following articles:

“Why has my bank account been closed?”

“Why has my business bank account been closed?”

“140,000 SMEs “de-banked” last year – why could I have been de-banked?”

“What are the proposed new laws aimed at preventing de-banking?”

“Why the proposed new laws to try and prevent de-banking do not go far enough”

“Am I entitled to a basic bank account in the UK?”

“How to challenge crypto-related bank account closures”

“De-banking and crypto – will the landscape be positively changed by the introduction of new rules for both?”

“2025 – A year in de-banking”

What can I do to challenge a wrongfully imposed CIFAS marker?

We are also being increasingly approached by individuals who believe that a financial institution has wrongfully imposed a CIFAS marker in their name.

If you have always acted in full compliance with the relevant bank account’s Terms and Conditions and all other applicable rules and regulations, then you should have a good basis to challenge the bank’s decision to implement any CIFAS markers.

A strong challenge will often involve demonstrating – through evidence – that you have not breached the bank’s Terms and Conditions or any rules, and that all transactions were conducted in full compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.

In previous articles, we examined what a CIFAS marker is, and how to try and get it removed, as well as what to do if a CIFAS marker has been wrongfully imposed.

We have also recently explored ways of challenging a crypto-related CIFAS Marker.

NAVIGATING FINANCIAL INSTITUTION-RELATED CHALLENGES

Adverse information on compliance databases

We regularly receive enquiries from individuals who believe that incorrect and/or inaccurate data held about them on compliance databases is having an adverse effect on their relationship with financial institutions, leading to issues such as bank account closures and difficulties in opening a bank account.

We have also written a series of articles on the main functions of compliance databases such as World-Check, and explained how to correct information about yourself on such databases.

HOW GHERSON CAN ASSIST

Gherson’s Regulatory, White-Collar Crime and Investigations team are highly experienced in assisting clients whose bank accounts have been frozen or closed. This includes submitting a request under data protection legislation, otherwise known as a Data Subject Access Request, to ascertain what information banks and other financial institutions may be holding about our client so as to understand their decision making, and then analysing their response and assisting with any appropriate challenge.

If you would like to speak to us in respect of any of the issues raised in this article or about your specific circumstances, do not hesitate to contact us for advice, send us an e-mail, or alternatively, follow us on X, Facebook, or LinkedIn to stay-up-to-date.

The information in this blog is for general information purposes only and does not purport to be comprehensive or to provide legal advice. Whilst every effort is made to ensure the information and law is current as of the date of publication it should be stressed that, due to the passage of time, this does not necessarily reflect the present legal position. Gherson accepts no responsibility for loss which may arise from accessing or reliance on information contained in this blog. For formal advice on the current law please do not hesitate to contact Gherson. Legal advice is only provided pursuant to a written agreement, identified as such, and signed by the client and by or on behalf of Gherson.

©Gherson 2026