JPMorgan Slammed for Trump Media Shutdown

Florida’s Attorney General is taking powerful action after JPMorgan Chase allegedly targeted Trump Media for “de-banking” at the height of partisan federal investigations, raising alarms among conservatives about coordinated attacks on free enterprise and political dissent.

Story Snapshot

Florida AG James Uthmeier investigates JPMorgan for closing Trump Media accounts, alleging political motivation and federal coordination.
“Arctic Frost” operation exposed: Senate reveals federal probes targeting hundreds of Republican-linked entities.
Timing of JPMorgan’s actions—just before Trump Media went public—could have caused significant financial harm.
New Florida laws invoked to protect consumers and businesses from politically motivated financial discrimination.

Florida AG Confronts JPMorgan Over Alleged De-Banking of Conservative Businesses

On November 10, 2025, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier announced a full-scale investigation into JPMorgan Chase, claiming the bank terminated its relationship with Trump Media & Technology Group at a critical moment—right before the company went public.

Uthmeier asserts this move was not only ill-timed but carried out in coordination with the Biden Department of Justice and Special Counsel Jack Smith, as part of a broader federal effort codenamed “Arctic Frost.” This investigation is being positioned as a defense of Florida companies and a stand against what many see as weaponized banking that undermines both economic freedom and political diversity.

At the heart of the controversy is the concept of “de-banking”—when financial institutions abruptly end relationships with clients, often citing risk or compliance. Conservatives have increasingly raised concerns that banks are using such justifications as a pretext to discriminate against right-leaning individuals and organizations.

Trump Media, which operates Truth Social, has reportedly struggled with major banks refusing large deposits since its founding. The situation escalated after the Biden DOJ subpoenaed JPMorgan for Trump Media-related records in March 2023, followed by account closures just as the company prepared to go public in March 2024.

These actions occurred against the backdrop of new Florida laws designed specifically to protect businesses and consumers from such politically motivated banking practices.

Senate Investigation Reveals Operation “Arctic Frost” Targeted Republicans

The Senate Judiciary Committee’s October 2025 release of “Arctic Frost” details unveiled a sweeping federal operation targeting hundreds of Republican entities. According to the committee, federal law enforcement sought extensive financial records from banks, raising alarm about the scope and intent behind these probes.

Uthmeier’s investigation into JPMorgan is partly a response to these revelations, as he contends that the bank’s actions toward Trump Media were not isolated, but part of a broader pattern of financial discrimination against conservative organizations.

Florida’s new anti-de-banking statutes are now being tested in real time, as the state challenges what it sees as overreach by both federal authorities and major financial institutions.

JPMorgan has so far declined to comment publicly on the details of the Florida investigation, but maintains that it complies fully with legal requirements and does not discriminate based on political affiliation.

However, sources close to the investigation describe the evidence as “damning,” suggesting that the bank’s coordination with federal authorities may have gone beyond routine compliance.

Uthmeier has issued a litigation hold to JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon and pledged to hold the bank accountable for any violations of Florida law, particularly those criminal and civil statutes meant to protect businesses from wrongful de-banking.

Political, Legal, and Economic Ramifications for Conservative America

The ramifications of this case extend far beyond Florida’s borders. In the short term, the investigation has cast a harsh spotlight on the banking sector’s treatment of political entities, especially as more conservative businesses and individuals report similar experiences.

If Uthmeier’s case succeeds, it could set a precedent for state-level challenges to federally coordinated financial probes, and prompt greater regulatory scrutiny of banks accused of political bias. For the business community, the episode underscores growing fears about access to basic financial services being dictated by ideology rather than law or sound risk management.

Long-term, the outcome may influence national debates over the role of banks in a free society and the limits of government intervention. Legal analysts point out the challenges of balancing anti-fraud enforcement with the need to safeguard constitutional rights and prevent government overreach.

Banking experts note that while compliance with subpoenas is standard, the timing and extent of account closures—especially those targeting high-profile political adversaries—raise difficult questions about due process and the integrity of the financial system.

For many conservatives, this case is a rallying point in the ongoing fight to protect individual liberty, defend free enterprise, and resist what they see as a creeping partisan agenda in America’s most vital institutions.