Capital One is pushing back against allegations from the Trump Organization that it unlawfully “debanked” the company for political reasons, telling a federal court that the decision to close hundreds of Trump-affiliated accounts followed an extensive internal anti-money laundering review rather than political considerations.
The bank made the argument in a court filing submitted Friday as it asked a federal judge in Miami to dismiss a lawsuit filed by the Trump Organization and Eric Trump. The plaintiffs contend that Capital One severed its banking relationship for politically motivated reasons in the aftermath of the January 6, 2021, Capitol riot.
According to the filing, Capital One informed the Trump Organization in March 2021 that it intended to close more than 300 affiliated accounts. The bank argues that the plaintiffs’ own allegations and supporting documents undermine their claims of political discrimination.
“Documents and Plaintiffs’ own allegations make clear that Capital One closed Plaintiffs’ accounts for anti-money laundering (“AML”) reasons,” the bank stated in its filing.
Capital One said the account closures followed a lengthy internal review conducted by its anti-money laundering team. The bank described the process as lasting several months and said it was carried out in accordance with established company policies and applicable regulatory guidance.
The financial institution emphasized that its decision should not be interpreted as an accusation that the Trump Organization engaged in illegal money laundering. Instead, the bank said the closures resulted from its internal compliance procedures and review process.
The filing represents the first time a financial institution has publicly connected the closure of Trump-related accounts to concerns arising from an anti-money laundering compliance review.
Capital One is asking the court to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the latest version of the complaint suffers from the same deficiencies as earlier filings.
The legal dispute has already encountered multiple setbacks for the plaintiffs. A federal judge previously dismissed two earlier versions of the complaint, though the court allowed amended complaints to be filed.
Capital One argued that the revised complaint submitted in July still fails to overcome what it described as the same fundamental legal shortcomings present in the previous pleadings.
The bank also rejected the Trump Organization’s contention that its explanation for closing the accounts was merely a pretext for politically motivated action.
In its filing, Capital One characterized those allegations as “misguided,” arguing they rely on “cherry-picked quotations unsupported by the full context” of the documents presented before the court.
The lender further maintained that the transaction patterns identified during its review are consistent with activity highlighted in federal banking guidance as warranting attention during anti-money laundering compliance reviews.
While the Trump Organization and Eric Trump continue to argue that the accounts were closed because of political bias following the January 6 Capitol riot, Capital One insists the evidence points in another direction.
According to the bank, the decision was the product of a months-long compliance review conducted by its anti-money laundering specialists under existing banking policies and regulatory standards. On that basis, Capital One is asking the federal court to dismiss the lawsuit, maintaining that the plaintiffs have not presented a legally sufficient claim and that the latest complaint repeats the same core flaws identified by the court in its earlier rulings.