Years ago Experian hit me with a sneaky fee for some credit-monitoring service I’d apparently been auto-enrolled in after checking my score. It was a substantial amount of money at the time. When I complained & asked for a refund for this auto-enroll service, Experian immediately offered me a discounted rate.
I filed a complaint with the CFPB. I have no idea what happened behind the scenes, but Experian backed down and refunded every penny.
I’m not an expert in financial regulation but that was the first time in a while where I felt like a federal agency was actually protecting ordinary people rather than hassling them.
Over past couple years the CFPB’s leadership seems packed with hyperpartisan apparatchiks intent on dismantling the very agency they’re in theory going to run.
This debanking matter may well fall within the CFPB’s purview. But the agency today seeing today bears little resemblance to the muscular consumer watchdog it was created to be.
Acting Director Mark Paoletta strikes me as precisely the kind of Washington operator lawyer you’d want nowhere near an agency whose entire purpose is to protect consumers from powerful financial institutions.
CFPB is interesting. Banks largely hate it and this administration had a major input in defanging it, which makes this action more interesting. FWIW, while rank and file employees effectively enforcing BSA laws are broadly tend to be somewhat neutral ( and you do want disinterested parties ), I agree with your hesitation on the current state of federal agencies.
CFPB has been decent, and I’m glad they are still doing some work. My understanding is that their scope has been reduced, and it looks like the new focus is on things that are still legitimate problems but which are somehow more “right-coded” (like debanking). What I wouldn’t give for a truly nonpartisan agency that tackles issues across the board.
They ignored the debanking issue for a long time, likely because it was somehow framed as a partisan issue, despite it affecting people across the political landscape. The issue falls squarely within their mandate, so it’s ridiculous that it took so long to address it.
In this blog post, Patrick McKenzie (ex Stripe) details with accuracy how mostly left leaning organisations weaponised banking and website terms of services to “cancel” the business necessities for people and organisations they did not like:
That quote is not at all what they said, it appears to have been invented out of thin air by PBS.
Capital One said the closures were a result of review "in accordance with bank policies and regulatory guidance". They did not state they were concerned about money laundering.
AML teams at banks are not limited to money laundering investigations, which PBS would've known if they did even the smallest amount of journalism.
In fact, Capital One explicitly stated they have never revealed the reason behind the closure -- mentioned in the same article.
This is significant because according to internal Capital One documents, along with 8 other banks, they explicitly have policies that deny banking access on the basis of lists that target lawful banking for political reasons. [1]
Another reason this report is garbage is that Capital One would've been obligated to file Suspicious Activity Reports if they suspected money laundering, which would've appeared in the FinCEN leaks. The Trump Organization and no Trump-affiliated were found in them. [2] The leaks included DB's SARs, who was a known Trump-affiliated bank.
Perhaps I should have linked to the Reuters version instead; it was covered widely:
"Capital One has never accused the Trump Organization of illegal money laundering. But Friday's filing argues that "documents and Plaintiffs’ own allegations make clear that Capital One closed Plaintiffs’ accounts for anti-money laundering (“AML”) reasons"
I filed a complaint with the CFPB. I have no idea what happened behind the scenes, but Experian backed down and refunded every penny.
I’m not an expert in financial regulation but that was the first time in a while where I felt like a federal agency was actually protecting ordinary people rather than hassling them.
Over past couple years the CFPB’s leadership seems packed with hyperpartisan apparatchiks intent on dismantling the very agency they’re in theory going to run.
This debanking matter may well fall within the CFPB’s purview. But the agency today seeing today bears little resemblance to the muscular consumer watchdog it was created to be.
Acting Director Mark Paoletta strikes me as precisely the kind of Washington operator lawyer you’d want nowhere near an agency whose entire purpose is to protect consumers from powerful financial institutions.
https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/nonprofit-indicted-ba...
Now the same tactics have been used to cancel the cancellers:
https://www.cato.org/blog/judge-denies-motion-toss-splc-indi...
This is a dangerous example what happens when someone brings non court judgement to the IT.
"Trump bank accounts were closed due to concerns over possible money laundering, Capital One says"
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/trump-bank-accounts-we...
Capital One said the closures were a result of review "in accordance with bank policies and regulatory guidance". They did not state they were concerned about money laundering.
AML teams at banks are not limited to money laundering investigations, which PBS would've known if they did even the smallest amount of journalism.
In fact, Capital One explicitly stated they have never revealed the reason behind the closure -- mentioned in the same article.
This is significant because according to internal Capital One documents, along with 8 other banks, they explicitly have policies that deny banking access on the basis of lists that target lawful banking for political reasons. [1]
Another reason this report is garbage is that Capital One would've been obligated to file Suspicious Activity Reports if they suspected money laundering, which would've appeared in the FinCEN leaks. The Trump Organization and no Trump-affiliated were found in them. [2] The leaks included DB's SARs, who was a known Trump-affiliated bank.
[1] https://www.occ.gov/news-issuances/news-releases/2026/nr-occ...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FinCEN_Files
"Capital One has never accused the Trump Organization of illegal money laundering. But Friday's filing argues that "documents and Plaintiffs’ own allegations make clear that Capital One closed Plaintiffs’ accounts for anti-money laundering (“AML”) reasons"
from
https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/capital-one-says-it...
Other points:
* Capital One says anti-money laundering review prompted closure of more than 300 Trump-affiliated accounts
* Trump Organization and Eric Trump sued in March 2025, alleging political debanking
Notice "political debanking" :)
Reuters made the same rudimentary error. Capital One never said that in any filing. They said the opposite, that they have never revealed ANY reason.
You can read the filings yourself, or review the notable lack of SARs in the FinCEN leaks.
Capital One is obligated to file SARs in the event of money laundering. They did not do so.