2026-09-10T10:03:31.537Z / 路透社
- 内容摘要
- 公司
- 第一资本金融、摩根大通等机构遭特朗普起诉
- 两家银行否认特朗普所称出于政治动机终止其账户服务的说法
- 法律及银行业专家表示，和解可能引发更多诉讼
- 特朗普向第一资本金融索要未明确金额的赔偿，向摩根大通索赔50亿美元
纽约9月10日路透电 – 美国总统唐纳德·特朗普正对他眼中的对手施压，摩根大通（JPM.N，打开新标签页）和第一资本金融（COF.N，打开新标签页）正选择反击。法律专家和业内人士表示，这一策略可能比妥协承担的风险更低。
特朗普及其企业已起诉这两家银行，指控它们在2021年出于政治原因关闭其账户。两家银行均否认相关指控。第一资本金融今年7月向联邦法院表示，该行是在内部反洗钱审查后关闭了特朗普的账户，这一说法引发了新的审查，包括一名民主党资深参议员上周敦促该行提供更多细节。
通过《早盘竞购美国》新闻简报，了解美国及全球市场当日焦点。点击此处订阅。
广告反馈！
第一资本金融并未指控特朗普或其企业存在洗钱行为。两家银行的发言人均拒绝置评。特朗普集团上周称，此次反洗钱审查是掩盖出于政治动机做出关闭账户决定的借口。
尽管多名法律专家表示，两家银行拥有强有力的抗辩理由，但与特朗普对抗仍存在风险：可能加深与总统的敌对情绪，同时将银行内部的机密审议过程公之于众。
但和解的风险可能更大。六名法律专家和银行业消息人士表示，和解可能会促使更多客户提起诉讼，声称他们也遭遇了类似的“终止账户服务”。一家联邦银行监管机构正在调查约10万起针对多家银行的此类投诉，预计很快将公布调查结果。
“和解更大的风险在于，我们不知道特朗普家族可能会提出什么要求，”乔治梅森大学法学教授托德·兹维基说道，他曾与特朗普的过渡团队及机构审查团队合作，负责联邦金融监管事务。
“这可能会吸引更多因账户遭遇不利处理的人提起诉讼，而且根据个别和解协议的条款，还可能向任何声称自己被终止账户服务的人提供相关信息，”兹维基补充道。
终止账户服务指银行切断客户的服务访问权限，通常是出于对法律、财务或声誉风险的担忧。
特朗普法律团队的一名发言人表示，第一资本金融、摩根大通等大型机构“公然”出于政治原因终止了总统及其家族和企业的账户服务。
“特朗普总统的有力诉讼正促使这些恶劣行为者为其可耻行径负责，”该发言人说道。
法律专家称银行胜诉把握大
多年来，共和党一直指责华尔街银行推行带有左翼倾向的“觉醒”歧视性政策，切断宗教或保守派团体以及化石燃料企业、枪支制造商等保守派关联行业的服务。
特朗普加大了施压力度。
2025年3月提起的民事诉讼中，特朗普之子埃里克·特朗普及特朗普集团指控，第一资本金融在2021年1月6日国会山骚乱事件后关闭了300多个账户，原因是该行的政治偏见和“觉醒”理念。他们要求获得未明确金额的赔偿，并请求法院裁定账户关闭行为出于政治动机。
2026年1月，特朗普起诉摩根大通及其首席执行官杰米·戴蒙，指控他们为推行“觉醒”议程而关闭其账户。特朗普至少索赔50亿美元，并请求法院裁定该行行为非法。
多名法律专家和一位熟悉相关问题的行业高层消息人士表示，法律总体上对银行有利，因为客户协议通常赋予银行广泛的账户关闭自由裁量权，尽管银行常称联邦监管规定是关闭账户的主要原因。
第一资本金融和摩根大通在抗辩中援引了这一自由裁量权。第一资本金融表示，其账户关闭决定是反洗钱团队“按照银行政策和监管指引”进行的审慎审查的结果。一名法官已驳回了该案的两版诉状，但允许原告修改诉状。
摩根大通称特朗普提出的50亿美元诉讼毫无根据，并表示该行不会出于政治原因关闭账户。
“对银行而言，案件的胜算始终是决定和解还是诉讼的关键因素——即便对方是总统，”雷蒙德詹姆斯银行分析师埃德·米尔斯说道。
反击的目标机构往往表现良好
特朗普政府曾将其他被视为对手的机构作为目标，包括媒体机构、律师事务所和大学，称这些行动是合理的路线修正、必要的不当行为调查以及合法的政策举措。
一位未参与两家银行此案但熟悉相关情况的消息人士表示，其中一些案例表明，在法庭上据理力争的目标机构往往能获得有利结果。
例如，多家律师事务所成功获得裁决，阻止了政府的相关措施。而一些达成和解协议的律所则被其他律师和媒体评论员指责为试图讨好政府。
尽管银行经常和解民事诉讼，但如果和解涉及系统性做法的指控，可能会使银行面临更广泛的财务损失，法律专家表示。例如，2007至2009年次贷危机以及随后的利率操纵丑闻相关和解协议，引发了多年的后续诉讼。
加密货币公司、枪支团体等也投诉遭遇了终止账户服务。
美国货币监理署正在调查约10万起终止账户服务投诉，以及包括第一资本金融和摩根大通在内的银行的内部信贷政策。路透社等媒体6月曾报道，美国司法部也在调查终止账户服务相关指控。
两名银行业消息人士表示，如果第一资本金融和摩根大通看起来承认他们没有充分理由就关闭了账户，可能会面临更多诉讼、监管审查和赔偿要求。
两家银行也有能力聘请顶尖诉讼律师团队。摩根大通聘请了琼斯·戴律师事务所，该律所与包括特朗普政府在内的共和党政府关系密切；第一资本金融则聘请了德贝维尤与普林斯顿律师事务所。
两家律所均未回应置评请求。
“这两家银行都由实力雄厚的首席执行官领导……他们拥有 proven track record（久经考验的成功记录），”哥伦比亚大学里奇曼商业、法律与公共政策中心高级研究员托德·贝克说道，“他们不怕承担风险。”
努普尔·安南和乔纳森·斯坦普尔纽约报道；米歇尔·普莱斯和马修·刘易斯编辑
我们的报道准则：遵循汤森路透信托原则，打开新标签页
努普尔·安南是路透社纽约分社美国银行业通讯员，专注报道摩根大通、富国银行及地区性银行。她在印度报道银行与金融领域超过十年，记录了大型银行的倒闭以及数字银行和加密货币行业的动荡。她拥有德里大学英语文学学士学位和班加罗尔印度新闻与新媒体学院新闻学研究生文凭，同时也是获奖小说作家。
Capital One and JPMorgan bet that fighting Trump may be safer than settling
2026-09-10T10:03:31.537Z / Reuters
- Summary
- Companies
- Capital One, JPMorgan among institutions targeted by Trump
- Banks deny Trump’s claims of politically motivated debanking
- Settling could spur more lawsuits, legal and banking experts said
- Trump seeking unspecified damages from Capital One, $5 billion from JPMorgan
NEW YORK, Sept 10 (Reuters) – As U.S. President Donald Trump pressures institutions he views as adversaries, JPMorgan Chase
(JPM.N), opens new tab
and Capital One
(COF.N), opens new tab
are fighting back. It is a strategy that legal experts and industry sources say may carry fewer risks than giving in.
Trump and his businesses are suing the banks, alleging they closed his accounts in 2021 for political reasons. They deny the claims. Capital One told a federal court in July that it closed Trump’s accounts following an internal anti-money-laundering review, sparking renewed scrutiny including from a senior Democratic senator who last week pressed the bank for more details.
Get a look at the day ahead in U.S. and global markets with the Morning Bid U.S. newsletter. Sign up here.
Report Ad!
Capital One has not accused Trump or his businesses of money-laundering. Spokespeople for both banks declined to comment. The Trump Organization last week called the anti-money-laundering review a pretext to conceal a politically motivated decision.
While several legal experts said the banks have strong defenses, fighting Trump poses risks for the banks by potentially deepening animus with the president and airing confidential internal deliberations in public.
But settling could be more hazardous. It could encourage lawsuits from many other customers claiming they were similarly “debanked,” half a dozen legal experts and banking industry sources said. A federal bank regulator is probing about 100,000 such complaints against multiple banks and is expected to soon release its findings.
“The larger risk of settling is we don’t know what the Trump family might demand,” said Todd Zywicki, a George Mason University law professor who has worked with Trump’s transition and agency review teams on federal financial oversight.
“It could invite additional lawsuits by people who faced adverse actions over their bank accounts and, depending on the terms of individual settlements, provide information to anyone who claims they were debanked,” Zywicki added.
Debanking occurs when a bank cuts off an account holder’s access to services, often because of concern about legal, financial or reputational risks.
A spokesperson for Trump’s legal team said Capital One, JPMorgan and other major institutions debanked the president, his family and businesses for “blatantly” political reasons.
“President Trump’s powerful lawsuits are holding these bad actors accountable for their disgraceful conduct,” the spokesperson said.
LEGAL EXPERTS SAY BANKS HAVE STRONG CASES
Republicans have for years accused Wall Street banks of discriminatory left-leaning “woke” policies to cut off services to religious or conservative groups and conservative-aligned industries such as fossil-fuel companies and gunmakers.
Trump has ratcheted up that pressure.
In a civil lawsuit filed in March 2025, his son Eric Trump and the Trump Organization alleged Capital One closed more than 300 accounts following the January 6, 2021, attack on the Capitol because of the bank’s political bias and “woke” beliefs. They are seeking unspecified damages and a court declaration that the closures were politically motivated.
Then in January 2026, Trump sued JPMorgan and CEO Jamie Dimon, accusing them of closing his accounts to promote a “woke” agenda. Trump is seeking at least $5 billion in damages and a declaration that the bank acted unlawfully.
The law is generally on banks’ side because customer agreements typically confer broad discretion to close accounts, said several legal experts and a top industry source familiar with the issues, although lenders frequently say federal regulations are the primary reason for doing so.
Capital One and JPMorgan have cited that discretion in their defenses. Capital One said its account closures resulted from a careful review by its AML team “in accordance with bank policies and regulatory guidance.” A judge has tossed two versions of the complaint in that case, but allowed amendments.
JPMorgan has called Trump’s $5 billion lawsuit meritless, and said it does not close accounts on political grounds.
“For banks, the strength of the case is always a key factor in deciding whether to settle or litigate — even when the other party is the president,” said Ed Mills, a Raymond James banking analyst.
TARGETS FARE WELL WHEN THEY FIGHT BACK
The Trump administration has targeted other perceived adversaries, including media organizations, law firms and universities, for what it has said are valid course corrections, necessary probes of wrongdoing and legitimate policy initiatives.
Some of those cases have shown that targets who push back in court can fare well, said one source who is not working on the banks’ cases but familiar with the issues.
Several law firms, for example, won rulings blocking administration measures. Some firms that reached deals, meanwhile, have been accused by other lawyers and media commentators of attempting to curry favor with the administration.
While banks frequently settle civil litigation, doing so where the allegations concern systemic practices can expose them to broader financial harm, legal experts said. Settlements relating to the 2007 to 2009 mortgage crisis and later rate-rigging scandals, for example, generated years of follow-on litigation.
Cryptocurrency companies, gun groups and others have also complained about being debanked.
The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency is probing around 100,000 debanking complaints as well as banks’ internal lending policies, including those of Capital One and JPMorgan. The Justice Department is also probing debanking allegations, Reuters and others reported in June.
If Capital One and JPMorgan ever appeared to concede that they closed accounts without sufficient grounds, they could open themselves to additional lawsuits, regulatory scrutiny and compensation claims, two of the banking sources said.
The banks can also afford the best defense from top litigators. JPMorgan has hired Jones Day, a major firm with ties to Republican administrations, including Trump’s, while Capital One is using Debevoise & Plimpton.
The firms did not respond to requests for comment.
“Both these banks are led by formidable CEOs … who have a proven track record,” said Todd Baker, senior fellow at the Richman Center for Business, Law and Public Policy at Columbia University. “They are not afraid to take risks.”
Reporting by Nupur Anand and Jonathan Stempel in New York; Editing by Michelle Price and Matthew Lewis
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles., opens new tab
Nupur Anand is a U.S. banking correspondent at Reuters in New York. She focuses on JPMorgan Chase, Wells Fargo and regional banks. Anand covered banking and finance in India for more than a decade, chronicling the collapse of major lenders and turmoil at digital banks and cryptocurrencies. She has a degree in English literature from Delhi University and a postgraduate diploma in journalism from the Indian Institute of Journalism & New Media in Bangalore. Anand is also an award-winning fiction writer.
发表回复