JPMorgan Chase this week announced a $1.5 trillion initiative to reduce America&#8217;s reliance on China, with CEO Jamie Dimon cautioning that the United States has become &#8220;too reliant&#8221; on adversarial nations for critical supplies.
Dimon, one of the most influential voices on Wall Street, unveiled the firm’s <a href="https://www.jpmorganchase.com/newsroom/press-releases/2025/jpmc-security-resiliency-initiative" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Security and Resiliency Initiative</a> to combat this issue on Monday. Through the initiative, JPMorgan will invest up to $10 billion in four key areas: supply chain and advanced manufacturing, defense and aerospace, energy independence and resilience, and frontier and strategic technologies.
&#8220;The U.S. has allowed itself to become too reliant on unreliable sources of critical minerals, products, and manufacturing — all of which are essential for our national security,&#8221; Dimon <a href="https://www.wsj.com/opinion/investments-for-national-security-e954411c?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=AWEtsqcojq8v_IFiVE-mP1LoNEBJ97fJcA6JVlgr2gKwKrw7YrUeZHHoCoHedckFQGk%3D&amp;gaa_ts=68f01640&amp;gaa_sig=H1rn6_7YjpxQ3UEPrbXK_8VLOlrpWIDf_9-NqYg0ntF84Y3fsmguEEnm38cYZnd8FByrBCDlUrMpXLAe2dTp2w%3D%3D" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wrote</a> in a Wall Street Journal op-ed announcing the initiative.
&#8220;America needs more speed and investment,&#8221; Dimon wrote. &#8220;Our adversaries and potential adversaries aren’t waiting — we no longer have the luxury of time.&#8221;
&#8220;We need to act now,&#8221; Dimon stressed.
Currently, China produces 60% of the world’s rare earth minerals and performs up to 90% of the refining process to make them fit for everyday products. <a href="https://naturalresources.house.gov/uploadedfiles/hr761_everyday_uses.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Smartphones, defense systems, batteries, and medical devices</a> all contain critical minerals. Speaking on a press call, Dimon emphasized that this decision is a “JPMorgan initiative,” underscoring that it was developed independently of political or public-sector influence.
While not structured as a public-private partnership, the effort aligns with the Trump administration&#8217;s efforts to reduce American reliance on foreign governments for certain essential resources. In an effort to counter China’s dominance in critical minerals, the Trump administration took equity stakes in three mining companies: MP Materials Corp, Lithium Americas Corp, and Trilogy Metals Inc.
Public filings published by the Pentagon’s Defense Logistics Agency show plans to stockpile <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/cd5244eb-a8e9-42bc-8939-71ba0fefa057" target="_blank" rel="noopener">up to $1 billion of critical minerals</a>, underscoring their strategic importance.
Mining has not always been so politically favorable.
<a class="c-link" href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-sk="tooltip_parent" data-stringify-link="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/?utm_campaign=fall40&amp;utm_content=fallsale&amp;utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=editorial">Get 40% off new DailyWire+ annual memberships with code FALL40 at checkout!</a>
“Today, my administration stopped a 211-mile road from carving up a pristine area that Alaska Native communities rely on, in addition to steps we&#8217;re taking to maintain protections on 28 million acres in Alaska from mining and drilling,” President Joe Biden said in 2024.
President Trump reversed that decision last Monday, citing that the project contains “extensive deposits of copper, silver, gold, lead, cobalt, and other strategic metals.”
Biden’s original pause followed a Bureau of Land Management report warning that the project “would require over 3,000 stream crossings and could impact at risk wildlife populations, including sheefish, the already-declining Western Arctic caribou herd, and other subsistence resources.”
During his first term, Trump faced backlash after finalizing plans for mining and drilling on national lands in Utah.
At the time, Kamala Harris said, “We cannot allow national treasures like these get opened to logging, mining &amp; oil drilling because of Pres. Trump.”
Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-MA) vowed during her 2020 presidential run to reverse Trump&#8217;s mining policies on her first day in office.
“Climate change threatens every living thing,&#8221; Warren said. &#8220;On day one, I’ll do everything a president can do all by herself to fight this crisis: Roll back the changes that Trump is putting in place, stop all new drilling and mining on federal lands, and end offshore drilling.”
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) said, “These public lands belong to all Americans. Opening them up to mining and drilling against the will of the people is unacceptable.”
China’s metals and mining sector exceeded $10 billion in 2023, a 131% growth rate when <a href="https://www.energymonitor.ai/industry/weekly-data-china-seeks-to-extend-its-critical-minerals-dominance-with-overseas-investment-surge/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">compared</a> with the same period last year. This year, China’s metal and mining sector reached <a href="https://greenfdc.org/china-belt-and-road-initiative-bri-investment-report-2025-h1/#:~:text=Preliminary%20data%20on%20Chinese%20engagement,the%20previous%20record%20in%202024." target="_blank" rel="noopener">new investment records</a>, surpassing the previous record in 2024 in the first six months.

Jamie Dimon

‘We Need To Act Now’: JPMorgan Launches $1.5 Trillion Initiative To Reduce U.S. Reliance On China

China

Donald Trump

JP Morgan

Minerals

As we pass the halfway point of the 2020s, it’s safe to say we’ve all had front row seats to what many people have described as the vibe shift. You don’t really have to pay attention to business to understand that something is changing in corporate America. You don’t have to be looking at stocks every day to realize that the balance of power is shifting away from the heights of wokeness we saw at the beginning of the 2020s. President Trump’s latest executive <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/08/fact-sheet-president-donald-j-trump-guarantees-fair-banking-for-all-americans/">order</a>, prohibiting politicized debanking, is creating massive positive waves for conservatives concerned about losing access to their finances — and investors who don’t want the banks they invest in playing politics. This comes on the heels of other executive orders targeted at biased AI <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/07/preventing-woke-ai-in-the-federal-government/">programs</a> and divisive, discriminatory <a href="https://www.whitehouse.gov/presidential-actions/2025/01/ending-radical-and-wasteful-government-dei-programs-and-preferencing/">DEI policies</a>.
These big steps are the results of top-down exercises in executive power. And a frequent criticism I hear, as someone whose job it is to pay attention to business, is that Trump’s executive orders will just create a facade of non-wokeness, under which companies will resume their previous biased policies. As it happens, answering that criticism is a major part of my work in the world of corporate engagement. Because the <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-year-the-dei-tide-turned?author=Isaac+Willour&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=10&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=The+Year+The+DEI+Tide+Turned">pushback</a> against ESG, DEI, &amp; corporate wokeness isn’t just coming from the White House. It’s coming from ordinary investors all across this country who want the businesses they invest in focusing on… well, business.
Let’s take debanking as an example. Months before Trump’s debanking executive order came down, banks like <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/major-win-jpmorgan-chase-ends-political-debanking?author=Isaac+Willour&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=3&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=Major+Win%3A+JPMorgan+Chase+Ends+Political+Debanking">JPMorgan Chase</a> &amp; <a href="https://x.com/IsaacWillour/status/1929918865842012351">Citigroup</a> adopted explicit guarantees: no more debanking based on clients’ political beliefs or affiliations. These banks weren’t just anticipating the regulatory and political shift coming from Washington — they were hearing from shareholders. Why? Because when businesses play politics, they don’t just incur the wrath of Republican politicians. These gambles with brand value and deviations from the core business model hurt ordinary Americans, who rightly expect Citigroup to create value for their kids’ college fund instead of opining on gun control through their lending policies.
When JPMorgan Chase debanked Ambassador Sam Brownback, investors took notice. And the investors I work with aren’t the type to sit back and take it. Shareholders like <a href="https://www.wsj.com/finance/my-bid-to-make-jpmorgan-less-woke-progressive-discrimination-conservatives-christians-shareholders-sec-banking-finances-583c7999?gaa_at=eafs&amp;gaa_n=ASWzDAhg8WubEGKB7cvLlardDDcKkGeJqpUicqcbM1xoLBHMGeBHqpP1w-ZC4shMtQk%3D&amp;gaa_ts=68957d1d&amp;gaa_sig=hpzyOTrRxsQ-AO0cLmG4VpK0q2-FpzuLTXkXA0T73nZM0Iu73898-9shhfsDz68MpAEbFs9tDXU_DvlMbfl-Fw%3D%3D">David Bahnsen</a> and other ordinary <a href="https://investor.bankofamerica.com/regulatory-and-other-filings/all-sec-filings/content/0001193125-24-064529/d529855ddef14a1.pdf">investors</a> were attending annual meetings and putting pressure on these companies from the inside for years, not to be right-wing or give special privileges to conservatives, but to play it neutral: serve everyone, because everyone needs banks. And because banks have a fiduciary duty to their shareholders, there have been real arguments occurring between investors and company reps for years on the debanking issue. Add to this pressure from red state fiduciaries cutting ties with activist banks (turns out, pro-energy states don’t take kindly to banks demonizing the energy industry), and the supercharging effect of an executive order, and you start to see how corporate America is slowly shifting back towards normalcy. And that’s just the debanking issue.
If you had to sum up why the backlash to corporate wokeness is working in one sentence, try this one: the pro-sanity business ecosystem has become too big to ignore, and too committed to fail. Think about it as a coalition. One part is ordinary investors and institutions who invest for return — these aren’t professional activists, a dynamic that companies are only recently having to get used to. Another part is financial professionals, another part are legal advocates like Alliance Defending Freedom, working to make sure companies can’t just ignore their own shareholders (because they try — often). Another part is friendly journalists and X personalities like Robby Starbuck, putting millions of eyes on this issue. Another part is the countless advocacy groups providing the research &amp; data that fuel our ability to talk to these companies, such as Consumers’ Research and the 1792 Exchange. Effective corporate engagement happens when all these forces align on a single aim: getting companies out of politics &amp; back to business. 
And we’re seeing real results on a whole host of issues. Beyond the debanking issue, we’re seeing companies <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2025/jan/08/us-banks-quit-net-zero-alliance-before-trump-inauguration">ditch</a> anti-energy commitments in droves (turns out, net zero becomes a fantasy the minute you look at the energy demands of the real world.) We’re seeing companies commit to treating their religious employees with the same respect &amp; privileges afforded to non-religious ones, including through workplace affinity groups and inclusion in charity matching programs. We’re seeing companies like <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/pepsico-puts-out-viewpoint-neutral-media-buying-content-policy-website">PepsiCo</a> and <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ibm-rolls-back-dei-commits-to-political-neutrality?author=Isaac+Willour&amp;category=News&amp;elementPosition=2&amp;row=0&amp;rowType=Vertical+List&amp;title=IBM+Rolls+Back+DEI%2C+Commits+To+Political+Neutrality">IBM</a> commit to not using their ad policies to discriminate against conservative news outlets like the Daily Wire. And we have good reason to believe that, as corporate engagement increases, more wins are coming.
So, what about that façade of nonwokeness? Aren’t companies just going to lie? As it happens, vigilance from actual investors is a fantastic way to safeguard against that. People generally have the biggest incentive to do something when it hurts to not do it. So, who has the biggest incentive to make sure businesses aren’t playing politics? The people who own the business: shareholders. The investors we represent have a clear incentive to be in the details — because the problem of corporate wokeness isn’t just a PR or branding issue. It’s an issue that affects the bottom line Americans depend on.
The vibe shift we’re seeing goes far beyond Washington, even though Washington matters. What’s happening in America, in real time, is conservative investors and institutions waking up and realizing that they’ve been leaving their financial influence on the table. And we truly have no blueprint for how much winning is possible when that influence is brought to bear. So, from Washington, to the halls of conservative institutions, to the ordinary mom-and-pop investors sitting at their kitchen table in West Texas — here’s to winning. The best is yet to come.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Flag and Wall street sign

Why The Pro-Sanity Coalition Is Winning Again In Corporate America

Banks

Business

Corporations

debanking

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

Stock Market

Wall Street

Woke Culture

WASHINGTON—President Donald Trump is expected to take action against &#8220;politicized or unlawful debanking&#8221; practices, building off his own experience being denied service by JPMorgan and Bank of America.
Sources with direct knowledge of the matter <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/08/05/business/jpmorgan-and-bank-of-america-debanked-trump-under-pressure-from-biden-admin-sources/?utm_source=twitter&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=nypost">told the New York Post</a> that JPMorgan and Bank of America debanked the president and his tens of millions of dollars after President Joe Biden&#8217;s administration&#8217;s pressured banking regulators and the Federal Reserve. The debanking was reportedly related to Trump&#8217;s role in the January 6 Capitol Riot, the Post reported.
Regulators “put the fear of God in you if you did business” with Trump, one JPMorgan executive told the publication.
“Think back to what it was like being Trump back in 2021,&#8221; another banking executive with direct knowledge of the matter told the Post. &#8220;He was a hot potato after January 6 and the regulators made it clear to us that we shouldn’t do business with him.&#8221;
The president addressed the topic during a news appearance earlier this week, describing how he was given only a few weeks to &#8220;get out&#8221; of JPMorgan Chase as he tried to deposit a massive sum.
&#8220;The banks discriminated against me, very badly,&#8221; the president said. &#8220;They totally discriminated against me&#8230;they went to the regulators. Banks are not afraid of anything but a regulator&#8230;they told the banking commission, the banking regulators, do everything you can to destroy Trump. And that&#8217;s what they did. And guess what, I&#8217;m president? How did that happen?&#8221;
A White House official declined to get ahead of the president on the topic.
<div id="attachment_957841" style="width: 1034px" class="wp-caption alignnone"><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/white-house-prepares-executive-order-targeting-politicized-debanking/jp-morgan-chase-co-ahead-of-earnings-2" rel="attachment wp-att-957841"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-957841" class="wp-image-957841 size-full" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/GettyImages-2224515482.jpg" alt="" width="1024" height="682" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/GettyImages-2224515482.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/GettyImages-2224515482-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/GettyImages-2224515482-865x576.jpg 865w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/08/GettyImages-2224515482-768x512.jpg 768w" sizes=" (max-width: 1024px) 100vw, 1024px" /></a>Gabby Jones/Bloomberg via Getty Images.</div>
A JPMorgan spokesman emphasized to The Daily Wire that the bank supports fair access to banking and does not close accounts based on someone&#8217;s religion or politics. The spokesman said that JPMorgan has long said it is an issue that requires federal leadership, which is what the Trump administration appears to be doing with its executive order.
&#8220;This is a step in the right direction,&#8221; the spokesman said. &#8220;Preventing regulatory overreach and reforming laws that have led to debanking are welcome efforts. The industry has been involved in identifying solutions to this problem for years and looks forward to continuing to work this Administration and Congress to get this right.&#8221;
Senate Republicans have raised concerns about banks weaponizing &#8220;reputational risk&#8221; as a measure to determine whether it is safe to bank figures like Trump. Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina, for example, <a href="https://www.banking.senate.gov/newsroom/majority/scott-leads-effort-to-combat-debanking">led Banking Committee Republicans in May</a> in introducing legislation to eliminate all references to reputational risk when assessing the safety and soundness of regulated financial institutions.
The president is not alone laying the blame at the feet of regulators. The America First Policy Institute <a href="https://www.americafirstpolicy.com/issues/debanked-when-political-bias-trumps-financial-judgment">released a white paper last week</a> arguing that debanking is caused by &#8220;politically motivated federal regulators pressuring banks to end relationships with businesses they find ideologically objectionable.&#8221;
The group calls for Congress to consider laws requiring banking regulation be based on &#8220;financial principles, rather than subjective criteria and political judgments.&#8221;
&nbsp;

White House US President Donald Trump

White House Prepares Executive Order Targeting Politicized Debanking

Bank of America

JPMorgan Chase <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-07-11/jpmorgan-tells-fintechs-they-have-to-pay-up-for-customer-data">just announced</a> a new set of fees on financial-technology (fintech) platforms for access to their customers&#8217; bank account information. This move from the banking giant is a direct attack on consumer choice, financial innovation, and the free market.
America’s biggest bank is effectively imposing a tax on consumers. These fees aren’t about protecting customers or improving service; they’re about preserving the bank’s monopoly over your money and your information.
This is the clearest sign yet that Wall Street is terrified of competition from fintech platforms, decentralized finance (DeFi), and crypto. That’s because these sectors are delivering what traditional banks have long resisted: greater consumer choice, better user experiences, lower fees, and more transparency. They’re unlocking new technologies, slashing costs, and giving users greater control over their financial futures.
Apps like Venmo, Acorns, Robinhood, and Chime rely on secure access to banking data to offer direct-to-consumer services. These apps work because they can securely link to a user’s bank account through third-party platforms. When banks like JPMorgan make those connections more expensive or difficult, they’re not just squeezing fintech platforms, they’re cutting off consumers from tools they increasingly rely on and, in essence, forcing you to pay for access to your own banking information.
It&#8217;s clear JPMorgan and other major banks are trying to preserve their role as gatekeepers and consolidate control over consumers. It’s anti-competitive, plain and simple.
Worse still, when big banks like JPMorgan consolidate control, they’re able to impose political agendas. We&#8217;ve already seen how major financial institutions have embraced ideological causes and weaponized their power to &#8220;debank&#8221; disfavored individuals and businesses, usually conservative ones. Restricting access to financial data is just another tool to block the rise of independent platforms they can’t control.
These new fees will stifle innovation, suppress competition, and force Americans to depend on institutions that have prioritized politics over people.
At risk are the apps and digital currencies that give Americans the freedom to move their money, manage their budgets, invest in new ways, and protect their data from the very institutions that have spent decades abusing their trust.
That’s why Consumers’ Research is calling out JPMorgan’s tactics for what they are: predatory, monopolistic, and dangerous.
This is not what the future of banking should look like, but rather the past trying to hold on. By making it harder for outside platforms to access data, the big banks keep users locked into their own systems and interfaces. This allows them to charge higher fees, limit transparency, and maintain their control over customer relationships and financial insights.
Consumers’ Research has long warned that consolidation in the financial sector is a danger to both economic freedom and political neutrality. These new fees are another way to prevent disruptive platforms from offering alternatives that embrace consumer choice and remain free of political agendas. JPMorgan’s self-serving actions are bad for consumers and bad for America.
* * *
Will Hild is the Executive Director of Consumers’ Research, the nation’s oldest consumer advocacy organization.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

JP Morgan Chase & Co. Ahead Of Earnings

Debanking By Design: JPMorgan’s War On Fintech And Consumer Choice

Debanking By Design: JPMorgan's War On Fintech And Consumer Choice

Banking

finance

Money

Opinion

A new president might be in the White House, but Washington, D.C., is pushing “Pride” as much as ever this year. 
From parades and marches to dance festivals and drag performances, the nation’s capital has not stepped back from using “Pride Month” to push radical gender ideology. This year in D.C., hundreds of thousands of people took part in a three-week-long celebration called “<a href="https://worldpridedc.org/event/world-pride-family-fun-festival/">WorldPride</a>.” The weeks-long event concluded on Sunday with a march and a video message from former Vice President Kamala Harris, The Washington Post <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/06/08/world-pride-rally-march-national-mall/">reported</a>. 
“Pride is about honoring the trailblazers who came before, joining arms with those leading the fight for equality today and empowering the next generation to live boldly, freely and with joy,” Harris <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2025/06/08/world-pride-rally-march-national-mall/">said</a>. “In this moment, as you gather with friends and allies from across the world, let us be clear: No one should be made to fight alone. We are all in this together.”
While President Donald Trump and his administration have pushed back on some of the crazy transgender policies that were supported by the Biden administration, the Left continues to stake its identity on allowing men to compete against women and defending the sterilization and mutilation of children. 
The WorldPride event in D.C. was <a href="https://worldpridedc.org/our-advocates/">sponsored</a> by numerous companies and activist groups, including (unsurprisingly) Kaiser Permanente, the medical group that was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/detransitioner-chloe-cole-announces-official-lawsuit-against-kaiser-permanente-for-medical-negligence">sued</a> by detransitioner Chloe Cole claiming medical negligence for allegedly facilitating the chemical and surgical sex change operations on Cole when she was a minor. Another sponsor is Johns Hopkins University, which <a href="https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/center-transgender-health/services-appointments/children-adolescents-and-young-adults#:~:text=Clinical%20services%20are%20available%20for%20children%2C%20adolescents,for%20Transgender%20and%20Gender%20Expansive%20Health%20guidelines.">offers</a> children puberty blockers and cross-sex hormones. 
The <a href="https://worldpridedc.org/our-advocates/">list</a> of other sponsors goes on and on: 
<ul>
<li>Amazon </li>
<li>Starbucks</li>
<li>Ikea</li>
<li>JP Morgan Chase</li>
<li>Morgan Stanley</li>
<li>McDonald’s</li>
<li>Corona</li>
<li>Delta</li>
<li>United</li>
<li>Fresca</li>
<li>Hilton</li>
<li>Marriot</li>
<li>Wegmans</li>
<li>Hyatt</li>
<li>Dollar Tree</li>
<li>H&amp;M</li>
<li>Macy’s</li>
<li>Total Wine &amp; More</li>
<li>Astra Zeneca</li>
<li>AARP</li>
</ul>
All of these companies put their public stamp of approval on an event that focused on celebrating the LGBT identity and encouraged parents to bring their children to the “<a href="https://worldpridedc.org/event/world-pride-family-fun-festival/">World Pride Family Fun Festival</a>,” which it said would be “especially enjoyed by children ages 2–10.”
Most Americans are tired of the “Pride Month” shenanigans, but they’re still being shoved down their throats with the endorsements of some of the country’s most popular brands. 
At least there are still some companies that can read the room and aren’t going to push LGBT craziness — companies like <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/">Jeremy’s Razors</a>. 
Check out some of the quality products offered by Jeremy’s Razors, such as the<a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/products/precision-5-trial-kit-2?selling_plan=3820880085"> Precision 5 Razor</a>. Feel a little dirty after reading about D.C.’s “Pride” festival? Check out Jeremy’s all-new <a href="https://www.jeremysrazors.com/products/birch-bark-body-soap?_pos=1&amp;_sid=32db4f1d8&amp;_ss=r&amp;variant=51559588462805&amp;selling_plan=4232937685">Birch Bark body soap</a>. 
We’re not even halfway through June. The incessant drumbeat of “Pride Month” still has weeks to drive us crazy. Hopefully, you don’t have to be in a place like D.C. to endure the rest of it.
Jeremy&#8217;s Razors shares common ownership with The Daily Wire.

People celebrating Pride Month and Parade-People marching with the rainbow LGBTQ flag

D.C. Goes All Out For ‘Pride’: These Companies Sponsored The Weeks-Long LGBT Celebration

Amazon

Delta Airlines

LGBT

McDonald’s

Pride

Pride Month

Starbucks

United Airlines

Washington D.C.

Working in corporate engagement, I often hear questions about why the ‘long game’ matters in changing woke company policies. If executive orders can instantly push companies away from DEI or ESG initiatives, why take other pathways? The answer is clear: lasting change takes time. JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s largest bank, just proved this with a major policy shift — one that speaks louder than any theory ever could.
In 2022, JPMorgan Chase <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/03/10/opinion/i-was-debanked-by-jpmorgan-chase-but-fought-back-and-won/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">debanked</a> former U.S. Senator and Ambassador Sam Brownback, after Brownback opened an account for the newly-formed National Committee for Religious Freedom. The son of a Kansas farmer, Brownback refused to back down. When Brownback asked the bank for its rationale in shuttering his account, he was met with conflicting (and incorrect) explanations as to why.
Brownback’s debanking experience was the start of a major wave of scrutiny over exactly what conditions a bank will close a customer’s account. Victims range from nonprofit organizations like Indigenous Advance, an organization serving Ugandan widows &amp; orphans debanked by Bank of America in 2023, to Melania &amp; Barron Trump, who Melania <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-01-24-Letter.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">described</a> as having been debanked in her memoir, prompting further inquiry from the House Committee on Oversight.
Yet JPMorgan consistently ranked as one of the major bad actors in the debanking saga, closing not only Brownback’s account (and actually <a href="https://www.ag.ky.gov/Press%20Release%20Attachments/23.5.2%20Letter%20to%20Chase.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asked</a> for his org’s donor list for restoring service) but several other conservative nonprofits. The biggest bank in America was quickly racking up hits on its record of political neutrality and customer equality.
This trend might have gone unaddressed had the Right simply let the issue lie. Luckily, some of the most influential names in both the conservative legal, financial, and government worlds stepped up to the plate. Pressure for increased transparency and commitments to ditch any policies that could lead to a client being debanked for political reasons has come from all directions, from legal giants like <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/19-states-chase-stop-misleading-customers-commit-equality-treatment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> to <a href="https://www.viewpointdiversityscore.org/news/statement-on-debanking-and-free-speech" target="_blank" rel="noopener">notable financial professionals</a> to <a href="https://www.ag.ky.gov/Press%20Release%20Attachments/23.5.2%20Letter%20to%20Chase.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">state financial officers and attorneys general</a>. As that public pressure mounted, shareholder pressure has been growing from the inside for the past three years, spurred on by organizations like the firm I work for, Bowyer Research, with Chase investors like financial advisor David Bahnsen spending literal years <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bahnsen-takes-the-fight-today-to-jpmorgan-chase/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">urging</a> the company to clarify its approach to debanking — and fix its spotty track record on political neutrality.
And Chase listened.
In 2023, JPMorgan made the decision to axe its “social risk” policy from its payment processing arm, no longer allowing vague terms like “intolerance” and “hate” to determine whether a customer was fit to continue doing business at Chase. But the biggest win so far came several days ago, when Chase agreed to a policy change explicitly protecting customers and employees from discrimination based on religious or political views.
This is huge. Many stories about companies ditching woke policies consist of the company putting out a public statement (and often the controversy that follows). Statements are great, but they’re not the ideal. Companies can hide behind statements — and do. Several companies that have publicly made statements supporting political neutrality clearly have work to do when it comes to actually putting their policies where their mouths are.
But companies can’t hide behind policy changes. That’s why they’re a sign of both real progress and good faith. Shareholders like Bahnsen, and groups like ADF &amp; Bowyer Research, have been engaging with Chase for years to get this change. Make no mistake: Chase’s willingness to protect against future political/religious debanking is the result of real shareholders using real influence to create real change. It’s a victory for Chase’s customers and shareholders, but also for the company itself. It’s a win for a company to clear up concerns about corporate bias, a win that’s been a long time coming, and a win that hopefully many other banks will find instructive.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Major US Bank Bosses To Discuss Debanking With Senate Committee

Major Win: JPMorgan Chase Ends Political Debanking

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Bias

Censorship

Christians

Conservatives

Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase have just abandoned the Net Zero Banking Alliance. While it seems to be yet another dire omen for so-called environment, social and corporate governance (ESG) investing, it would be premature for people on the Right to imagine that the Left’s lock on the finance industry is ending.
ESG investing is notionally the idea that investors should consider the eponymous non-financial factors of ESG in making finance and investment decisions. The biggest part of “ESG” investing is the “E” (environment) and the biggest part of the “E” is climate and the dubious goal of “net zero emissions,” which I have previously written about <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/a-quiet-refutation-of-net-zero-climate-change-emissions-energy-global-warming-sec-goals-clean-power-11672262963?mod=opinion_lead_pos8" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a> and <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/net-zero-never-mind-environment-electrical-grid-carbon-emissions-climate-change-southern-co-energy-information-administration-db856556?mod=opinion_lead_pos10" target="_blank" rel="noopener">here</a>.
The phenomenon of ESG investing started out in the 1960s as “socially responsible investing” (SRI) investing, was rebranded as “corporate social responsibility” investing in the late 1990s and then rebranded again as ESG investing in the 2010s.
SRI/CSR/ESG investing was invented by the Left as a means of using stock ownership for political purposes. The practice started with labor unions in the 1960s. After the election of Ronald Reagan in 1980, a cadre of Left-wing activists got together to figure out how to use investment as a means of advancing the rest of the Left’s agenda.
In “Biz-War and the Out of Power Elite,&#8221; author Jarol B. Manheim writes, “22 young and wealthy individuals who shared a common concern about the conservative turn the country had taken … hit upon the idea to pool their [financial] resources and direct them at what they saw as socially and politically desirable programs&#8230;” aimed at corporations. Though it took time, this program succeeded beyond their wildest dreams. Meanwhile, the Right was largely asleep.
While Nobel laureate Milton Friedman prominently pushed back against SRI investing in his 1970 New York Times magazine article entitled, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” there was no organized follow-up until 2005. At that point, a friend of mine and I launched a publicly traded mutual fund called the Free Enterprise Action Fund to push back against the success the Left was having in foisting its CSR agenda on publicly-traded companies.
While our fund had <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/SB114411692660116163" target="_blank" rel="noopener">success</a>, we didn’t have the resources to survive the catastrophic market conditions of the housing bubble collapse. The deep-pocketed Left, though, easily survived the tough market conditions and emerged on the other side with near total control of the finance industry with its rebranded and steroidal ESG investing strategy. Virtually all large banks and Wall Street firms joined one or more of the Net Zero Bank Alliance, Net Zero Asset Managers, Net Zero Insurance Alliance, Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), Climate Act 100+ and other similar groups.
But this success bred arrogance on the Left and awoke conservatives to a degree that the Free Enterprise Action Fund could only have dreamed about in the 2000s. By 2020, the ESG empire and its anti-fossil fuel, anti-conservative, DEI and other “woke” policies and practices had sufficiently alarmed red state politicians into pushback. State investigations, hearings and laws reining in ubiquitous ESG actors and activities popped up. Congress got involved. Then, ESG investing began to reveal itself as <a href="https://x.com/JunkScience/status/1866505394635645146" target="_blank" rel="noopener">a poor investment strategy.</a>
<h3><a href="https://get.dailywire.com/subscribe/plus/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">JOIN THE MOVEMENT IN &#8217;25 WITH 25% OFF DAILYWIRE+ ANNUAL MEMBERSHIPS WITH CODE DW25</a></h3>
Perhaps most importantly, though, it had become increasingly clear that the ESG actors were illegally colluding as a cartel, possibly running afoul of anti-trust laws. While the ESG actors could possibly organize themselves into pushback against red states, the post-2024-election prospect of facing a federal government entirely controlled by Republicans would be too daunting. So, amid the holiday distractions, Bank of America, Citigroup, Morgan Stanley, Goldman Sachs and JPMorgan Chase all dropped out of the Net Zero Banking Alliance.
But those concerned about ESG would be wise not to declare victory and move on. The Left has acquired immense influence and power over the financial industry and has no intention of surrendering it. ESG may be dead as brand, but not as a strategy. The Left has been invested in SRI/CSR/ESG for a long time and for the long-term. While they will likely head underground for a few years, they will certainly be plotting a comeback that may start as soon as the 2026 elections.
* * *
Steve Milloy is a senior legal fellow with the Energy and Environment Legal Institute.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

NYSE Opens For Last Day Of Trading In 2024

As Banks Flee ESG, Conservatives Should Remain Vigilant

Citigroup

Goldman Sachs

Social Justice

Republicans on the House Judiciary Committee demanded Friday that over 60 companies provide answers on their involvement with leftist climate organizations, according to letters first shared with The Daily Wire. 
House Judiciary Chair <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/jim-jordan" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jim Jordan</a> (R-OH) and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-KY) told large companies, including BlackRock, State Street Global Advisors, and J.P. Morgan, to preserve all documents related to their involvement with the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero and the Net Zero Asset Managers. They also asked whether their involvement with those organizations had any influence on their company policies and asset management. 
The lawmakers wrote that “the Committee has uncovered evidence that financial institutions are colluding with climate activists through initiatives like the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ) and the Net Zero Asset Managers (NZAM) initiative to collectively adopt and impose left-wing environmental, social, and governance (ESG)-related goals, which may violate U.S. antitrust law.”
“The Committee has obtained evidence that members of GFANZ and NZAM attempt to impose a ‘net-zero’ climate agenda on U.S. companies in their investment portfolios,” they added. 
The Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero describes itself as “a global coalition of leading financial institutions committed to accelerating the decarbonization of the economy.&#8221; Net Zero Asset Managers, which says its signers have more than $57.5 trillion under management, is “an international group of asset managers committed, consistent with their fiduciary duty to their clients and beneficiaries, to supporting the goal of net zero greenhouse gas emissions by 2050 or sooner.”
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift-guide/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CHECK OUT THE DAILY WIRE HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE</a>
In the letter to J.P.Morgan Asset Management shared with The Daily Wire, the lawmakers ask if its membership in the organization has “altered its ‘stewardship and engagement strategy’ with its portfolio companies&#8221; and if it had taken any actions to push the companies it invests in toward net zero. 
The lawmakers also asked the companies if their involvement with both climate initiatives had impacted its voting policy, requesting an answer to its questions by January 10, 2025. 
“The Committee has reason to believe that J.P. MorganAsset Management may be in possession of documents and communications related to GFANZ and NZAM’s collusive activity that would inform potential legislative reforms,” the lawmakers wrote. “This letter serves as a formal request to preserve all existing and future records and materials relating to the topics addressed in this letter.”
In June, the House Judiciary Committee <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/house-republicans-take-aim-at-climate-cartel-pushing-decarbonization-of-american-industry">released</a> a report saying that there was a “climate cartel” working together to push companies to impose radical environmental goals and the decarbonization of American industry.

House Judiciary Committee Holds Hearing On Oversight Of FBI

EXCLUSIVE: Jordan, Massie Demand 60+ Companies Provide Answers On Climate Activism

BlackRock

Climate Change

House Judiciary Committee

Jim Jordan

Thomas Massie

Financial giants JPMorgan and State Street announced this week that they were leaving the Climate Action 100+ organization, an investors group that pushes ESG initiatives and controls about $68 trillion in assets. 
Black Rock, the world’s largest asset manager, also announced that it would be pulling some investment away from Climate Action, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2024/02/16/business/dealbook/wall-streets-climate-retreat.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">meaning</a> that the total investment value lost by the group is around $14 trillion. The moves were praised by Republicans, who have said that companies engaging in ESG initiatives harm the economy and use customers&#8217; money for political purposes. 
State Street said Climate Action 100+ requirements were no longer in line with company policy. “SSGA has concluded the enhanced Climate Action 100+ phase 2 requirements for signatories are not consistent with our independent approach to proxy voting and portfolio company engagement,” State Street <a href="https://www.ft.com/content/3ce06a6f-f0e3-4f70-a078-82a6c265ddc2" target="_blank" rel="noopener">told</a> The Financial Times. 
JPMorgan said that it was making the move because it doesn’t have to rely on Climate Action 100+ anymore. “Given these strengths and the evolution of its own stewardship capabilities, JPMAM has determined that it will no longer participate in Climate Action 100+ engagements,&#8221; the group said.
Climate Action, formed in 2017, <a href="https://www.climateaction100.org/approach/business-case/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">says</a> that it has over 700 investors who engage  “companies on improving climate change governance, cutting emissions and strengthening climate-related financial disclosure” and pushing the world’s biggest companies “take necessary action on climate change.”
House Judiciary Chair Jim Jordan praised the news and urged Black Rock to disengage from Climate Action. &#8220;Today’s decisions by JPMorgan and State Street are big wins for freedom and the American economy, and we hope more financial institutions follow suit in abandoning collusive ESG actions.&#8221;
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
Today’s decisions by JPMorgan and State Street are big wins for freedom and the American economy, and we hope more financial institutions follow suit in abandoning collusive ESG actions. <a href="https://t.co/PT3LlDjMSa">https://t.co/PT3LlDjMSa</a>
&mdash; Rep. Jim Jordan (@Jim_Jordan) <a href="https://twitter.com/Jim_Jordan/status/1758156354538131807?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">February 15, 2024</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
West Virginia State Treasurer Riley Moore, a frequent critic of ESG policies, also <a href="https://www.wvtreasury.com/About-The-Office/Press-Releases/ID/594/Treasurer-Moore-Commends-State-Street-JPMorgan-for-Withdrawing-from-International-Climate-Group" target="_blank" rel="noopener">praised</a> the decision from JPMorgan and State Street. Moore previously cut ties with Black Rock over their policies toward coal and natural gas. 
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-9096" data-saferedirecturl="https://www.google.com/url?q=https://onelink.to/dwapp&amp;source=gmail&amp;ust=1700760801843000&amp;usg=AOvVaw2PQrVSrJfhxNb4LcARqniG">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILYWIRE+ APP</a>
“This is a step in the right direction and significant victory in our states’ fight against the international corporate collusion targeting the coal, oil and natural gas industries,” Treasurer Moore said. “West Virginia and our coalition of states have been fighting for years against these efforts to boycott and curtail capital to our critical energy industries and diminish important economic activity and revenue for our states. This is a sign our efforts are making an impact.”
A coalition of Republican attorneys general <a href="https://ago.wv.gov/Documents/2023-03-30%20Asset%20Manager%20letter%20Press%20FINAL.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">previously wrote</a> to financial asset managers about their involvement with Climate Action warning them about using American’s savings to “push political goals.”

Climate Activists Mark 10 Years Since Hurricane Sandy In New York

Financial Giants Pull $14 Trillion From Climate Group That Pressures Companies To Take ‘Action On Climate Change’

U.S.

Saturday Night Live made headlines this weekend for all the wrong reasons. During Weekend Update, a cast member suggested that Donald Trump stumbled and introduced a “new term” to the debate called “de-banking.” What followed was a rather feeble attempt at mocking the former president.
In reality, de-banking is no laughing matter. It means losing essential financial services, like a bank account, payment processing, or even insurance, because of your views. And it is on the rise — so much so that the U.S. Supreme Court is set to hear arguments involving the issue this term.
Funny enough, the case originates in the Empire State (“Live from New York,” anybody?), where the National Rifle Association is challenging New York’s attempt to coerce banks and insurance companies to withdraw services from the group. The NRA alleges that the Department of Financial Services — at the behest of then-Governor Andrew Cuomo — used its vast power to regulate “reputational risk” along with back-channel meetings, public investigations, and threats of fines to punish the group for its Second Amendment advocacy. 
This is not an isolated incident. A string of religious ministries and conservative groups have also been <a href="https://www.viewpointdiversityscore.org/resources/instances-of-viewpoint-based-de-banking" target="_blank" rel="noopener">victimized</a> by de-banking. As Alliance Defending Freedom points out in a friend-of-the-court brief filed in support of the NRA’s position, pro-life group Heartbeat International was recently canceled by its insurance provider over its “anti-abortion” advocacy.
Likewise, Bank of America de-banked Indigenous Advance Ministries, an ADF client that serves impoverished Ugandan widows and orphans. The bank closed Indigenous Advance’s long-standing account as well as the account of a local church that donates to the ministry. The bank claimed it no longer wanted to serve their “business type” and that Indigenous Advance exceeded the “bank’s risk tolerance.”
It did this right before a planned mission trip to Uganda, sending Indigenous Advance scrambling to open new accounts and drastically reducing the funds for the trip. It couldn’t pay its Ugandan ministry partners — who live meal to meal — for several weeks. And it had to temporarily reduce aid to the impoverished people they serve.
Similar instances of de-banking abound. Former Brexit leader Nigel Farage’s high-profile case resulted in the <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/natwest-board-backs-ceo-alison-rose-over-farage-account-row-2023-07-25/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">ouster</a> of megabank NatWest’s CEO. Serial offender JPMorgan Chase’s <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/jpmorgan-targeted-by-republican-states-over-accusations-of-religious-bias-903c8b26?mod=Searchresults_pos1&amp;page=1" target="_blank" rel="noopener">hit list</a> includes the <a href="https://familycouncil.org/?p=25159" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Arkansas Family Council</a>, <a href="https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/chase-bank-missouri-conservative-group" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Defense of Liberty</a>, and U.S Ambassador Sam Brownback&#8217;s <a href="https://www.newsweek.com/stop-troubling-trend-politically-motivated-debanking-opinion-1787639" target="_blank" rel="noopener">National Committee for Religious Freedom</a>.
<iframe loading="lazy" title="Weekend Update: Trump Ordered to Pay $83 Million, DeSantis Endorses Trump - SNL" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/QLt6xK33mUc?start=133&#038;feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
There are many reasons for this phenomenon, but the root cause is vague terms of service. 
“Reputational” and “social” risk policies pervade financial institutions. Customers at all 28 commercial banks scored in Alliance Defending Freedom’s <a href="https://www.viewpointdiversityscore.org/business-index" target="_blank" rel="noopener">index</a> that measures corporate respect for free speech and religious freedom are currently vulnerable to de-banking.
Most alarmingly, 7 of the nation’s 10 largest commercial banks — including the top 3 — have “reputational risk” or “hate speech” policies. These policies’ overly broad and subjective language permit employees to discriminate based on a customer’s viewpoint and then hide their viewpoint-based actions behind opaque standards. They also allow abuse by government regulators.
A positive ruling in the NRA case — which, in a comedic twist that should provide fodder for SNL writers, is being argued by the ACLU — would affirm that the government cannot carry out its censorship schemes by co-opting third parties as censors. That would help. But that does not address the many de-banking decisions that can be laid at the feet of private actors.
The solution to this problem may lie with the states. This state legislative season presents an opportunity for states interested in protecting against politicized de-banking to act. Any such law should focus on the worst actors – the largest banks and payment processors. Thanks to wide-reaching government benefits, such as greater lending power, FDIC insurance rates, subsidies, bailouts, and an anticompetitive chartering system, these institutions dominate their markets over state-level competitors yet are responsible for the worst de-banking incidents.
At a minimum, the law should prohibit denial of services based on religious or political beliefs, give customers the right to ask for a detailed explanation when services are denied, empower the attorney general to enforce the statute, and provide aggrieved customers a private right of action.
No one should have to worry that they could lose their bank account, insurance coverage, or other essential financial services because of their religious or political views. Yet it’s clear that vague financial service policies abused by private and government actors pose a serious threat to everyone’s freedom of speech and religion.
So, an inadvertent thanks to our pals at SNL for bringing up de-banking. It’s about time we talked about it. And it’s about time for the law to require viewpoint neutrality from the biggest banks and payment processors.
* * *
Jeremy Tedesco is senior counsel and senior vice president of Corporate Engagement for <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=wallstreetjournal&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Daily Wire.

SNL’s Colin Jost on Weekend Update

SNL’s Trump ‘De-Banking’ Gaff Accidentally Elevates Hot Button Issue

SNL’s Trump 'De-Banking' Gaff Accidentally Elevates Hot Button Issue 

Readers Pass

Saturday Night Live

<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/jp-morgan">JPMorgan Chase</a>, the largest investment bank in the U.S., said it would pay $75 million to settle a lawsuit accusing the financial institution of facilitating <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/jeffrey-epstein" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jeffrey Epstein</a>’s sex-trafficking network. 
The U.S. Virgin Islands sued the bank for $190 million, claiming it looked the other way from suspicious payments and money transfers while Epstein committed sex crimes. The trial was set to begin on October 23. 
According to the Virgin Islands, the <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2023/09/26/jpmorgan-to-settle-jeffrey-epstein-suit-by-virgin-islands.html?__source=sharebar%7Ctwitter&amp;par=sharebar" target="_blank" rel="noopener">settlement</a> “includes several substantial commitments by JPMorgan Chase to identify, report, and cut off support for potential human trafficking, including establishing and implementing comprehensive policies and procedures.”
Of the settlement, $20 million will go toward legal fees, while $55 million will be allocated for anti-trafficking efforts by the Virgin Islands and charities. 
“As part of the settlement, JPMorgan has agreed to implement and maintain meaningful anti-trafficking measures, which will help prevent human trafficking in the future,” Virgin Islands Attorney General Ariel Smith said in a statement.
“This settlement is an historic victory for survivors and for state enforcement, and it should sound the alarm on Wall Street about banks’ responsibilities under the law to detect and prevent human trafficking,” Smith added. 
According to the Wall Street Journal, Epstein <a href="https://www.wsj.com/finance/banking/jpmorgan-paying-75-million-to-settle-suit-over-jeffrey-epstein-ties-545e7824" target="_blank" rel="noopener">maintained</a> dozens of bank accounts with JPMorgan and regularly communicated with leadership at the bank. 
“While the settlement does not involve admissions of liability, the firm deeply regrets any association with this man, and would never have continued doing business with him if it believed he was using the bank in any way to commit his heinous crimes,” JPMorgan said in a statement. 
At the same time the settlement between the Virgin Islands and JPMorgan was announced, the bank said it had settled with former executive Jes Staley, who was close to Epstein.
Staley has been sued by JPMorgan, which blamed the bank’s connection to Epstein on him. The details of that settlement have not been disclosed. 
Emails between Staley and Epstein allegedly <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/virgin-islands-and-jpmorgan-accuse-each-other-of-enabling-jeffrey-epstein-in-new-court-filings" target="_blank" rel="noopener">show them discussing</a> someone described as “Snow White.” Staley allegedly emailed Epstein from his work account on July 9, 2010, saying, “That was fun. Say hi to Snow White.” Epstein reportedly replied, “What character would you like next,” to which Staley allegedly replied, “Beauty and the Beast.”
<a class="c-link c-link--focus-visible" href="https://onelink.to/dwapp" target="_blank" rel="noopener noreferrer" data-stringify-link="https://onelink.to/dwapp" data-sk="tooltip_parent" aria-describedby="sk-tooltip-66706">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
In an <a href="https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rh8weMHKF6X0/v0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">additional filing</a> from the Virgin Islands, Staley was allegedly told by then-JPMorgan CEO Douglas Warner that Epstein was “one of the most connected people I know of in New York,” saying he should meet him. 
JPMorgan <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jpmorgan-to-settle-sex-trafficking-lawsuit-with-epstein-victims-for-290-million" target="_blank" rel="noopener">previously settled</a> with victims of Epstein’s trafficking operation for $290 million. While the bank has agreed to settle, it has not acknowledged any wrongdoing. 
The bank had accused the Virgin Islands of complicity with Epstein, claiming that the territory “created a haven for Epstein’s criminal activity.”

Patrick McMullan Archives

JPMorgan Settles Another Jeffrey Epstein-Related Suit Weeks Before Trial Date

Courts

Jeffrey Epstein

Sex Trafficking

Virgin Islands

The U.S. <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/virgin-islands" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Virgin Islands</a> and banking giant JPMorgan Chase have accused each other of enabling <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/jeffrey-epstein" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Jeffrey Epstein</a>, according to new court filings. 
The filing from the Virgin Islands references alleged communications between a former and current JPMorgan executive which appears to show that they knew of Epstein’s ties to “nymphettes,” while the filing from JPMorgan says that the Virgin Islands was trying to shift blame for allowing Epstein’s <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/topic/sex-trafficking" target="_blank" rel="noopener">sex trafficking</a> to the bank.
“This is not a case about Jeffrey Epstein’s victims. This is a case in which a complicit governmental actor, the United States Virgin Islands (USVI), knowingly used its sovereign powers to enable Epstein’s sex crimes, including by soliciting his input on its own sex offender legislation, waiving sex offender monitoring requirements for him, facilitating the provision of ESL classes and visas that allowed him to bring victims to USVI, and actively looking the other way whenever he arrived at USVI airports accompanied by young women and girls,” JPMorgan <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.591653/gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.223.0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">said</a> in a legal filing on Monday. 
The bank added that it will prove that the Virgin Islands “created a haven for Epstein’s criminal activity.” JPMorgan, the largest investment bank in the U.S., <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/jpmorgan-to-settle-sex-trafficking-lawsuit-with-epstein-victims-for-290-million" target="_blank" rel="noopener">settled with victims</a> of Epstein&#8217;s sex trafficking operation for $290 million last month. 
In its <a href="https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.nysd.591653/gov.uscourts.nysd.591653.221.0.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">148-page filing</a>, the Virgin Islands alleged that JPMorgan was deeply tied to Epstein and facilitated his sex-trafficking operation. The government accused JPMorgan of facilitating millions of dollars in payments to Epstein’s alleged co-conspirators in sexually abusing young women, settlement payments, legal expense payments, “suspicious cash withdrawals,” and payments to women with “Eastern European surnames.” 
One message included in the filing from former JPMorgan CFO David Brigstocke to JPMorgan executive Mary Erdoes in September 2012 seems to indicate the executives knew that all was not right with Epstein. 
&#8220;Reminded me of JE&#8217;s house, except it was more tasteful, and fewer nymphettes,&#8221; Brigstocke allegedly wrote. &#8220;More like the Frick [museum]. Art was fabulous.&#8221;
The filing also points to alleged communications between Epstein and Jes Staley, a former banking executive for JPMorgan and Barclays. Staley has been sued by JPMorgan, who blames the bank&#8217;s connection to Epstein on him. 
Alleged emails between Staley and Epstein show them discussing “Snow White.” Staley allegedly emailed Epstein on July 9, 2010 from his work email saying, “That was fun. Say hi to Snow White.” Epstein reportedly replied, “what character would you like next,” to which Staley allegedly replied “Beauty and the Beast.”
<a href="https://onelink.to/dwapp">CLICK HERE TO GET THE DAILY WIRE APP</a>
In an <a href="https://assets.bwbx.io/documents/users/iqjWHBFdfxIU/rh8weMHKF6X0/v0" target="_blank" rel="noopener">additional filing</a> on Monday from the Virgin Islands, Staley was allegedly told by then JPMorgan CEO Douglas Warner that Epstein was “one of the most connected people I know of in New York,” saying he should meet him. 
The Virgin Islands is <a href="https://www.reuters.com/legal/jpmorgan-ignored-epsteins-nymphettes-us-virgin-islands-says-2023-07-25/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">suing</a> JPMorgan for $190 million over its handling of its relationship with Epstein, while the bank has sued Staley to make him culpable for any Epstein fallout.

Virgin Islands And JPMorgan Accuse Each Other Of Enabling Jeffrey Epstein In New Court Filings

Crime

Menu