Debanking was yet one more government-initiated scam to rejigger the economy and punish enemies.

2 years ago, we told you about the hidden but serious problem termed “debanking”—suddenly your bank (and many or all others) no longer wants to do business with you.

Here’s what we said then:

https://doortofreedom.org/the-social-credit-system-is-already-here/

What!? How does this happen? Is it a real “thing” or were there just a few high-profile people who experienced this?

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/05/15/business/trump-debanking-crypto.html

The NYT claims we don’t have a right to a bank account. This is clearly a narrative they just constructed, since businesses are not allowed to discriminate. Remember the wedding cake and the gay couple? “You must bake cake for all!” said the courts.

First, it is important to know that banks LOVE doing business with criminals, laundering hundreds of billions dollars of drug money and other ill-gotten gains yearly for them and pulling great fees in the process. Deutsche Bank especially, but many others, like Chase. It has been the banks would go out of business if they ended their illicit money-laundering practices.

I bring this up because the NYT article (first graphic) implies through most of the article that banks just happenened to simultaneously decide that certain businesses were high risk and they should stop lending to them.

But you may recall that Melania and Baron Trump were among those debanked—clearly this was a political, not a risk-management decision.

This is, if you cannot write checks or deposit funds you cannot do business. This debanking thing was at attempt to put a whole lot of businesses and people OUT of business. Or at minimum to cause great inconvenience. And the perpetrators knew that the people being debanked would mostly stay quiet about it, since the public would assume they had not paid their debts.

Like COVID, they had it all figured out, ahead of time, using our emotions to control us.

The NYT gets into the “blame the victim” mentality fromost of the article, with choice paragraphs like this:

No legal right to a bank account exists, however. Banks are prohibited from discriminating in lending on the basis of protected factors including race and gender, but are generally permitted to eschew categories of customers deemed too risky, such as adult entertainers or cash-dependent small businesses.

What appears as prejudice to some is, to others, simply a bank using its discretion to run a profitable business and avoid depositors who raise red flags. Lawmakers say there have been thousands of debanking complaints over the past few years.

“The debanking hysteria is all smoke, no fire,” said Adam J. Levitin, a professor of law and finance at Georgetown University. “It’s a lot of self-serving and unverifiable allegations from risky businesses and customers.”

You have to read more than halfway down the article to learn that this practice did not evolve spontaeously to protect banks, but rather from government regulation:

The debanking conversation tracks back to the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, when regulators enacted rules to deter banks from lending to risky businesses.

An Obama administration program, Operation Choke Point, cracked down on bank accounts for some payday lenders and gun-related businesses.

The first Trump administration dropped the Choke Point initiative, and Democrats also began arguing that a rash of small-business account closures was evidence that something needed to be done to curb debanking.

In late 2020 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, under Mr. Brooks, said it saw evidence that the five largest banks in America — JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, Wells Fargo and U.S. Bank — had stopped providing banking services to fossil fuel companies.

Aha! This was part of the ESG initiative, to pivot the economy to a green bankruptcy system. All part of gaining greater consolidation and eventually killing Main Street.

Of course, the NYT tried to make it about Trump, but the closing of Trump accounts could not be justified, so the writers moved on.

The first lady, Melania Trump, wrote in her recent memoir that a bank had dropped her and the couple’s son, Barron, though she cited no evidence and her office declined to provide any. And in March, the Trump Organization sued Capital One in a state court in Florida, accusing the bank of “unjustifiably terminating” more than 300 of its bank accounts after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol because of “‘woke’ beliefs.”

A Capital One spokesman denied that the bank closed any accounts for political reasons, but declined to provide any other reason for Trump account closures.

Face it, this is lawfare. It needs to be rooted out at every level.