Weaponized Finance: Trump Calls Out Bank of America’s War on Conservatives

President Donald Trump took the stage at the World Economic Forum in Davos and delivered a withering indictment of Bank of America and its CEO, Brian Moynihan. Trump, never one to mince words, accused the banking behemoth of “debanking” conservatives—a modern iteration of ideological warfare executed through financial ostracism. Moynihan’s retort came swiftly: "We would never close accounts for political reasons and we don’t have a political litmus test."

The bank’s public relations spin notwithstanding, a growing pile of evidence suggests otherwise. The revelations of politically motivated account closures cast a harsh light on the deeper machinations of financial institutions under the influence of government pressure—pressure that finds its roots in the regulatory zeal of the Obama administration and thrives today under the Biden administration.

The story begins in the early 2010s, when the Obama administration’s Department of Justice and Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) unleashed Operation Choke Point. Ostensibly targeting fraud and money laundering, this initiative placed undue scrutiny on businesses arbitrarily deemed “high risk,” such as firearms dealers, payday lenders, and other politically inconvenient industries. The true purpose was more insidious: to suffocate these lawful businesses by cutting off their access to the banking system.

This strategy of selective financial exclusion set a dangerous precedent. When the government signals to banks that associating with certain industries or individuals invites regulatory headaches, the resulting “risk-averse” behavior amounts to de facto blacklisting. What began as an under-the-radar initiative during the Obama era has since metastasized into a systemic tool for ideological enforcement.

Fast forward to the Biden administration, and the practice has taken on new dimensions, with conservatives and faith-based organizations now on the chopping block. The Biden-era Treasury Department, for instance, circulated a list of “hate groups” to financial institutions after January 6, 2021. That list, courtesy of partisan organizations like the Southern Poverty Law Center, included mainstream conservative organizations such as the Alliance Defending Freedom and Family Research Council.

This move signaled to banks that doing business with anyone remotely associated with conservatism could attract regulatory scrutiny or reputational damage—a chilling effect with far-reaching consequences.

The examples of ideological debanking are as egregious as they are abundant. John Eastman, a former Trump attorney, was abruptly notified that Bank of America had closed his account. When Eastman inquired about the rationale, the bank’s response was a Kafkaesque wall of silence: no explanation, no appeal.

Melania Trump, a former First Lady of the United States, had her long-standing bank account shuttered—a decision her family claims was tied directly to her last name. Even more absurdly, her son Barron was reportedly denied the opportunity to open an account for the same reason. These incidents are not anomalies; they are part of a broader pattern.

Indigenous Advance Ministries, a faith-based organization that aids Ugandan orphans, saw its account of eight years summarily closed. The reason given? The group’s mission no longer aligned with the bank’s “risk tolerance.” This cryptic language has become a catch-all justification for political bias in financial decision-making.

The National Committee for Religious Freedom, founded by former Kansas Governor Sam Brownback, experienced similar treatment when JPMorgan Chase shut down its account without a clear explanation. Such actions belie claims of impartiality and reveal the banks’ growing alignment with progressive cultural and political agendas.

The Biden administration’s fingerprints are unmistakable in this landscape of financial suppression. Federal authorities have warned banks to be wary of customers with transactions labeled “MAGA” or “Trump,” as well as those purchasing from firearms retailers like Bass Pro Shops. Even the FBI has exploited its relationships with financial institutions, as evidenced by testimony that Bank of America voluntarily handed over data on customers who made purchases in Washington, D.C., around January 6, 2021.

This collusion between government and financial institutions mirrors the coordination seen between federal agencies and social media companies in censoring conservative voices online. Both represent a betrayal of foundational American principles: free speech, free association, and the right to be free from state-orchestrated discrimination.

Alexander Hamilton, who understood the vital role of banking in a free society, once remarked that "a national debt, if it is not excessive, will be to us a national blessing." Hamilton’s broader point was clear: financial stability underpins liberty. When the financial system becomes a weapon wielded by the state to enforce ideological conformity, it ceases to be a blessing and becomes a curse.

The parallels to 20th-century totalitarian regimes are chilling. The Soviet Union and Nazi Germany both used state-controlled banks to punish dissent and marginalize political opponents. While the United States remains far from such overt tyranny, the seeds of authoritarianism are sown when banks, under government pressure, act as enforcers of political orthodoxy.

The solution lies in reclaiming the principles of limited government and individual liberty. Policymakers must ensure that financial institutions operate as neutral arbiters, not ideological gatekeepers. Measures like the "Fair Access Rule," proposed under the Trump administration but shelved by Biden, must be resurrected and enacted to prevent banks from discriminating against lawful customers.

Moreover, congressional oversight is imperative. Jim Jordan’s investigations into financial institutions’ cooperation with federal authorities represent a critical first step. In the marketplace of ideas—and in America, especially—coercion, threats, and discrimination for political and religious views have absolutely no place. Thankfully, people are taking action to push back against efforts at debanking. Nineteen state attorneys general sent a letter to JP Morgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon to stop discriminatory banking practices. Alliance Defending Freedom gathered signatures for a recent statement backed by investors and financial industry professionals asking Dimon and other financial industry CEOs to “respect free speech and religious liberty.”

States should respond quickly and unequivocally, sending a clear message that this kind of discrimination will not be tolerated. They, too, can call on banks and financial institutions to stop viewpoint discrimination and defend free speech and free association. They can also pass legislation to stop the debanking of ideologically disfavored individuals, industries, and groups.

The debanking of conservatives is not merely an attack on individuals or organizations; it is an assault on the foundational freedoms that define the American experiment. Left unchecked, this weaponization of finance threatens to erode the very liberties—freedom of speech, association, and conscience—that underpin our Republic. President Trump’s fiery words at Davos should serve as a wake-up call: The battle for free markets and free minds is far from over.

If you don't already please follow @amuse on 𝕏 and subscribe to the Deep Dive podcast.