Federal prosecutors are investigating whether some of America’s largest banks improperly closed customer accounts based on political beliefs, affiliations, or lawful business activities.

Federal prosecutors have opened a criminal investigation into whether some of the nation’s largest banks cut off customers because of their political views. The probe became public on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, when people familiar with the confidential matter said the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the District of Columbia, led by Jeanine Pirro, had issued subpoenas to several major lenders, including JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo.

The subpoenas, some dating back to last year, seek lists of customers whose accounts were closed and records explaining the reasons for those closures. Prosecutors are examining whether the decisions were standard business actions or whether customers were targeted because of their political views, affiliations, religious beliefs, or industries in which they operate.

JPMorgan Chase did not immediately comment. Bank of America and Wells Fargo declined to comment.

At the center of the investigation is a practice known as “debanking,” in which a financial institution closes an account or declines to provide banking services. For individuals and businesses alike, losing access to banking services can create serious disruptions, affecting payroll, bill payments, deposits, financing, and everyday operations.

According to people familiar with the matter, prosecutors are reviewing whether any account closures violated federal law, including the Financial Institutions Reform, Recovery and Enforcement Act of 1989 (FIRREA). The statute is commonly associated with bank fraud investigations but is also attractive to prosecutors because it provides a broad enforcement framework and a ten-year statute of limitations.

That timeline would allow investigators to review account closures dating back to the period following the January 6, 2021 Capitol riot, when some financial institutions reassessed relationships with politically exposed clients and organizations.

The investigation represents the most significant escalation to date in a broader debate over whether financial institutions have unfairly denied services to customers based on political considerations.

President Donald Trump has repeatedly accused major banks of refusing to do business with him following his first term in office. He publicly raised the issue with Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan during the World Economic Forum in Davos in early 2025.

In August 2025, Trump signed an executive order titled “Guaranteeing Fair Banking for All Americans,” directing federal agencies to investigate allegations of politically motivated debanking and refer potential violations to the Department of Justice.

Much of the government’s initial review was conducted by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), which supervises the nation’s largest national banks. According to reports, the OCC found preliminary evidence that some institutions had imposed restrictions on certain customers in the past.

Notably, the regulator reportedly did not formally refer the matter to the Justice Department. That makes the criminal investigation unusual, as prosecutors appear to have moved forward independently rather than acting on a formal regulatory recommendation.

The banks involved have consistently denied closing accounts because of politics or religion.

JPMorgan Chase has publicly stated that it does not close accounts based on political or religious affiliation. Banking industry representatives argue that account closures are typically driven by anti-money-laundering requirements, sanctions compliance obligations, fraud concerns, or other regulatory risk-management considerations.

That defense highlights one of the central questions facing investigators.

Federal civil-rights laws prohibit certain forms of discrimination, particularly in lending. However, banks generally maintain broad discretion over whom they choose to serve, and regulatory requirements sometimes compel institutions to terminate relationships viewed as high-risk.

Critics of the investigation argue that banks are being scrutinized for complying with the same federal regulations that require extensive customer-risk monitoring.

The outcome could have major implications for several industries that have long struggled to maintain banking relationships.

Cryptocurrency companies, cannabis businesses, firearms-related businesses, political organizations, advocacy groups, and certain nonprofit entities have frequently argued that they face heightened scrutiny from financial institutions. A determination that some account closures were unlawful could reshape how banks evaluate customer risk and could lead to significant changes in compliance policies across the industry.

Meanwhile, regulators have already begun adjusting their guidance.

Earlier this month, the Federal Reserve, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) jointly removed references to “reputation risk” from supervisory guidance. Critics had argued that the standard allowed banks to deny services to lawful businesses simply because they were politically controversial or carried public-relations risks.

For now, the investigation remains in its early stages.

Subpoenas are requests for information and do not indicate wrongdoing. No bank has been charged with a crime, and prosecutors have not publicly alleged that any institution violated federal law.

Still, the probe signals that federal authorities intend to test a question that has increasingly moved from political debate into legal scrutiny: when a bank decides to close an account, where is the line between legitimate risk management and unlawful discrimination?

JBizNews Desk — Washington

© JBizNews.com All Rights Reserved. Reproduction or distribution without written permission is prohibited.