Courts

SIR Idris Elba is due to give evidence in the trial of a woman who allegedly stalked him and his wife.

The defendant is to face court next year after being arrested and charged.

The Sun told last year how actor Idris, 53, and his wife Sabrina, 36, had allegedly received unwanted emails and other communications.

The woman was also said to have turned up at private events in London, which the couple attended separately on different days.

A source said: “These events were seriously distressing for Idris and his family.

“He had no choice but to report it to the authorities.”

BECKS & BUCKS

How Nicola Peltz’s dad built £1.7bn empire… & the ‘huge test’ Brooklyn passed

SUGDEN EXIT

Emmerdale’s Isabel reveals she’s RELIEVED to be leaving soap after 20 years

The woman, in her 30s, was arrested in October and in November denied five harassment-related charges at Kingston crown court, South West London.

She has been released on bail.

Luther star Idris is expected to take the stand in the trial pencilled in for May 2027.

The Met Police said: “A woman has been charged following an investigation.

“The charges follow an arrest on Sunday, 26 October, 2025.”

Caracas, February 6, 2026 (venezuelanalysis.com) – Venezuelan Acting President Delcy Rodríguez held meetings with oil executives from Repsol (Spain) and Maurel & Prom (France) on Wednesday as part of ongoing efforts to secure energy investments amid US pressure and unilateral sanctions.

“We discussed the models established in the reformed Hydrocarbon Law to strengthen production and build solid alliances toward economic growth,” Rodríguez wrote on social media.

State oil company PDVSA, represented at the meetings by its president, Héctor Obregón, touted the prospects of establishing “strategic alliances” and “win-win cooperation” with the foreign multinational corporations. 

The Rodríguez administration recently pushed a sweeping reform of Venezuela’s Hydrocarbon Law. Corporations are set to have increased control over crude extraction and exports, while the Venezuelan executive can discretionally reduce taxes and royalties and lease out oil projects in exchange for a cut of production.

Venezuelan leaders have defended the pro-business reform as a step forward to attract investment for a key industry that has been hard hit by US coercive measures, including financial sanctions and an export embargo, since 2017, as part of efforts to strangle the Venezuelan economy and bring about regime change.

Former President Hugo Chávez had overhauled oil legislation in 2001 to reestablish the state’s primacy over the sector with mandatory majority stakes in joint ventures, increased fiscal contributions, and a leading PDVSA operational role. Increased revenues financed the Bolivarian government’s aggressive social programs of the 2000s, which dramatically reduced poverty and expanded access to healthcare, housing, and education for the popular classes. 

Repsol and Maurel & Prom currently hold stakes in several oil and natural gas joint ventures in the South American country. The two firms, as well as Italy’s Eni, have operated in a stop-start fashion in recent years as a result of US sanctions. 

The European companies have consistently lobbied for increased control and benefits in their projects in the molds now established in the reformed energy legislation.

Since launching military attacks and kidnapping Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro on January 3, the Trump administration has vowed to take control of the Venezuelan oil sector and impose favorable conditions for US corporations. Senior US officials have praised Caracas’ oil reform.

According to reports, the White House has dictated that proceeds from Venezuelan crude sales be deposited in US-run accounts in Qatar, with an initial agreement comprising 30-50 million barrels of oil that had built up in Venezuelan storage as a result of a US naval blockade since December.

On Tuesday, the US Treasury Department issued a license allowing Venezuelan imports of US diluents required to upgrade extra-heavy crude into exportable blends. On January 27, Washington issued a sanctions waiver allowing US companies to purchase and market Venezuelan crude. The exemption requires payments to be made to US-controlled accounts and bars dealings with firms from Russia, Iran, Cuba, and North Korea.

The US Treasury is additionally preparing a license to allow US companies to extract Venezuelan oil, according to Bloomberg.

The White House has urged US corporations to invest in the Venezuelan oil sector and promised favorable conditions. However, executives have expressed reservations over significant new investments. According to Reuters, US refiners have likewise not been able to absorb the sudden surge of Venezuelan heavy crude supplies, while Canadian WCS crude remains a competitive alternative. 

Vitol and Trafigura, two commodities traders picked by the White House to lift Venezuelan oil, have offered cargoes to European and Asian customers as well. India’s Reliance Industries is reportedly set to purchase 2 million barrels. In recent years, the refining giant has looked to Venezuela as a potential crude supplier but seen imports repeatedly curtailed by US threats of secondary sanctions.

US authorities have reportedly delivered US $500 million from an initial sale to Venezuelan private banks, which are offering the foreign currency in auctions that are said to prioritize private sector food and healthcare importers. Nevertheless, Venezuelan and US officials have not disclosed details about the remaining funds in a deal estimated at $1.2-2 billion.

Besides controlling crude sales, the Trump administration has also sought to impose conditions on the Venezuelan government’s spending of oil revenues. On Tuesday, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent told House Representatives that the flow of oil funds will be subject to outside audits. 

US Secretary of State Marco Rubio had told a Senate committee last week that US authorities would scrutinize Caracas’ public expenditure and claimed that Venezuelan leaders needed to submit a “budget request” in order to access the country’s oil proceeds.

Washington’s attempted takeover of the Venezuelan oil industry also has an expressed goal of reducing the presence of Russian and Chinese companies. On Thursday, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov told media that the country’s enterprises are being “openly forced out” of the Caribbean nation at the behest of the US.

In mid-January, the US’ naval blockade drove away Chinese-flagged tankers on their way to Venezuela. With crude shipments partly used to offset longterm oil-for-loan agreements, Beijing has reportedly sought assurances of the repayment of debts estimated at $10-20 billion. For their part, independent Chinese refiners have moved to replace Venezuelan supplies with Iranian heavy crude.

American Idol alum Rhonetta Johnson appears worse for wear in a new mugshot linked to an arrest for prostitution years after appearing on the hit talent show.

Johnson, now 44, became a viral sensation after a disastrous audition during American Idol’s Season 5 in 2006, when she had a fiery clash with judge Paula Abdul.

The U.S. Sun can exclusively reveal she was taken into custody at the end of January after skipping previous court dates.

She was booked in North Carolina’s Mecklenburg County after an outstanding order for arrest tied to a long-running prostitution case was finally served at the courthouse.

She was issued multiple release orders, had a public defender appointed, and was placed on a $2,500 unsecured bond, which was later posted.

The arrest traces back to a separate prostitution case filed in 2018, which dragged on for years after Johnson repeatedly failed to appear in court.

Johnson was caught on October 4 in an undercover sting at a massage parlor that led to multiple prostitution arrests in Charlotte, according to charlottealertsnews.com.

Officers found her at the Continental Inn on West Sugar Creek Road, where she allegedly agreed to have sex with an undercover officer for $35, cops said.

During the encounter, Johnson reportedly made a spontaneous statement admitting she had a crack pipe, which officers later found in her bag, leading to an additional charge, the outlet reported.

The charge was later dropped, and only the prostitution charge was filed.

Following her initial arrest, Johnson repeatedly missed court appearances, prompting several warrants, and she was taken into custody and released multiple times in 2019 on secured bonds reaching $2,000.

Despite the drawn-out proceedings, prosecutors ultimately dismissed the prostitution charge with leave in February 2020, formally ending the case, though unresolved paperwork allowed it to resurface years later.

LONG RAP SHEET

Johnson’s legal troubles date back even further.

In June last year, the Columbus Police Department also issued a missing persons plea after she reportedly disappeared.

A post on Facebook shows they later updated followers, saying she had been located in “good health.”

In 2012, she was cited for possessing up to half an ounce of marijuana and charged with soliciting for prostitution, court filings show.

After failing to appear in court multiple times, she was finally arrested in August 2014.

The case was resolved the following month when she pleaded guilty to the marijuana charge and was sentenced to 27 days in jail, all credited as time already served, while the prostitution charge was dismissed.

Court records later show she was hit with $170 in attorney-fee judgments, which remained unpaid and were flagged for state debt collection in July 2025.

The U.S. Sun can also confirm she has had multiple run-ins with the law dating back as far as the 1990s, before her time on the show.

WILD CONTESTANT

Johnson first grabbed attention as a contestant in 2006, auditioning in Greensboro, North Carolina.

She didn’t make it to the Hollywood rounds, but her audition became infamous, not for her singing, but for her reaction after being rejected by the judges.

Johnson lashed out at Abdul, claiming she could be “bigger” than stars like JLo, Janet Jackson and Mariah Carey, and even refused Abdul’s offer of water, mocking the judge on camera.

Clips of the audition went viral, earning Johnson a spot in reality TV lore and even a humorous mention during that season’s finale.

She never launched a mainstream music career, though she did release a self-produced remix EP in 2014.

The United States Supreme Court has ruled in favour of a California redistricting measure meant to net the Democratic Party more congressional seats, rejecting a challenge from the state Republican Party.

There was no dissent in Wednesday’s decision, and the conservative-majority court did not offer any explanation for its decision.

Instead, its order was comprised of a single sentence, stating that the Republican application “is denied”.

Previously, in December, the Supreme Court had allowed a similar redistricting measure, designed to benefit Republicans in Texas, to move forward.

Democratic officials in California have applauded Wednesday’s decision as fair, given that Republican President Donald Trump has led a nationwide push to redraw congressional districts in his party’s favour.

“Donald Trump said he was ‘entitled’ to five more Congressional seats in Texas,” California Governor Gavin Newsom said in a written statement.

“He started this redistricting war. He lost, and he’ll lose again in November.”

California’s Attorney General Rob Bonta echoed Newsom’s remarks, blaming Trump for launching a kind of redistricting arms race that threatened to disenfranchise Democratic voters.

“The US Supreme Court’s decision is good news not only for Californians, but for our democracy,” Bonta said in the statement.

The Supreme Court’s decision marks a win for Democratic efforts to counter the Trump-led redistricting efforts, which began last year in Texas.

In June last year, reports emerged that Trump had personally called Texas state politicians to redraw their congressional districts to give Republicans a greater advantage in Democrat-held areas.

Each congressional district elects one person to the US House of Representatives, which has a narrow Republican majority. Out of 435 seats, 218 are held by Republicans, and 214 by Democrats.

Texas, a Republican stronghold, proceeded to approve a newly revamped congressional map in August, overcoming a walkout by Democratic legislators.

That, in turn, prompted Newsom to launch a ballot initiative in California to counteract the Texas effort.

Just as the new Texas congressional map was designed to increase Republican seats by five, the California ballot initiative, known as Proposition 50, was also positioned to increase Democratic representation by five.

Voters in California passed the initiative overwhelmingly in a November special election, temporarily suspending the work of an independent redistricting commission that had previously drawn the state’s congressional maps.

Newsom, a possible 2028 presidential contender, framed Proposition 50 as a means of fighting “fire with fire”.

The new map approved under Proposition 50, however, will only be in place through the 2030 election, and Newsom has pledged to repeal it, should Republicans in Texas do the same with their new map.

The push to redistrict for partisan gain — a process known as gerrymandering — has long faced bipartisan pushback as an attack on democratic values.

Normally, redistricting happens every 10 years, after a new census is taken, to reflect population changes.

But this mid-decade redistricting battle comes before the pivotal 2026 midterm elections, which are slated to be a referendum on Trump’s second term as president. Trump has already expressed fear that he might be impeached, should Congress switch to Democratic control.

Partisan gerrymandering is not necessarily illegal, unless it purposefully disenfranchises voters on the basis of their race. That, in turn, is seen as a violation of the Constitution and the Voting Rights Act, an important piece of civil rights legislation from 1965.

In response to the passage of Proposition 50, Republicans in California sued Newsom and other state officials in an effort to overturn the new congressional map.

They argued the new map was created “specifically to favor Hispanic voters” and would dilute the representation of Republican voters in the state.

The Trump administration joined the lawsuit on November 13, backing the state Republicans.

But Bonta, the California attorney general, argued the redistricting process was legal. In court filings, he also maintained that Trump’s backing of the lawsuit was driven by self-interest.

“The obvious reason that the Republican Party is a plaintiff here, and the reason that the current federal administration intervened to challenge California’s new map while supporting Texas’s defense of its new map, is that Republicans want to retain their House majority for the remainder of President Trump’s term,” his court filing said.

Bonto also called on the Supreme Court not to “step into the political fray, granting one political party a sizeable advantage” by overturning Proposition 50.

The victory for California Democrats on Wednesday comes as redistricting fights continue across the country.

Already, states like North Carolina, Ohio and Missouri have adopted new congressional maps to favour Republicans. There has been pushback, though.

In December, Indiana’s Republican-led legislature voted down a partisan redistricting measure, despite pressure from Trump to pass it.

Maja T was part of a group that attacked participants at Budapest’s ‘Day of Honour’, a major neo-Nazi event.

A Hungarian court has jailed a German anti-fascist activist for eight years for attacking participants at a far-right rally in Budapest.

Maja T, 25, was sentenced on Wednesday after being convicted of involvement in violence ahead of the annual “Day of Honour” commemoration in Budapest. The event is one of the biggest neo-Nazi rallies in Europe.

The defendant was accused of attempted aggravated bodily harm causing life-threatening injuries and assault committed as part of a criminal organisation.

“We all know what verdict the prime minister of this country wants,” Maja T told the court before the guilty verdict was given.

Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban has previously designated anti-fascist groups linked to the attacks as “terrorist” organisations.

Orban’s spokesman, Zoltan Kovacs, welcomed the sentence in a message on X, branding Maja T an “antifa terrorist” – a reference to the left-wing protest movement.

Maja T was extradited from Germany to Hungary in December 2024. Supporters of the activist have criticised detention conditions, as well as the chances for a fair trial in Hungary.

Last year, Germany’s Constitutional Court ruled that the extradition was unlawful because it could not be guaranteed that the defendant would not be subject to inhumane or degrading treatment in Hungarian custody.

Maja T’s father, Wolfram Jarosch, said the sentence confirmed his “fears” before the hearing. “This was a political show trial,” he said in a statement.

The conviction can be appealed.

Far-right protest

Prosecutors said Maja T was one of 19 members of a multinational far-left group that travelled to Hungary and attacked nine people, including German and Polish citizens, whom they identified as far-right extremists. Victims of the attack suffered broken bones and head injuries.

The annual rally in the Hungarian capital marks the failed attempt by Nazi and allied Hungarian soldiers to break out of Budapest during the Red Army’s siege of the city in 1945.

A number of people accused of participating in the 2023 “Day of Honour” attacks have been tried in Hungary and Germany. One woman received a five-year prison sentence in Germany.

Italy and France have refused to surrender two suspects to Hungary, with courts in both countries citing the risk of “inhumane treatment” in prison.

A judge in the United States has declined to order President Donald Trump’s administration to halt its immigration crackdown in Minnesota, amid mass protests over deadly shootings by federal agents in the US state.

US District Judge Kate Menendez on Saturday denied a preliminary injunction sought in a lawsuit filed this month by state Attorney General Keith Ellison and the mayors of Minneapolis and Saint Paul.

She said state authorities made a strong showing that immigration agents’ tactics, including shootings and evidence of racial profiling, were having “profound and even heartbreaking consequences on the State of Minnesota, the Twin Cities, and Minnesotans”.

But Menendez wrote in her ruling that, “ultimately, the Court finds that the balance of harms does not decisively favor an injunction”.

The lawsuit seeks to block or rein in a Department of Homeland Security (DHS) operation that sent thousands of immigration agents to the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area, sparking mass protests and leading to the killings of two US citizens by federal agents.

Tensions have soared since an Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed Minneapolis mother Renee Nicole Good in her car on January 7.

Federal border agents also killed 37-year-old nurse Alex Pretti in the city on January 24, stoking more public anger and calls for accountability.

Tom Homan, Trump’s so-called “border czar”, told reporters earlier this week that the administration was working to make the immigration operation “safer, more efficient [and] by the book”.

But that has not stopped the demonstrations, with thousands of protesters taking to the streets of Minneapolis on Friday amid a nationwide strike to denounce the Trump administration’s crackdown.

Speaking to Al Jazeera from a memorial rally in Saint Paul on Saturday, city councillor Cheniqua Johnson said, “It feels more like the federal government is here to [lay] siege [to] Minnesota than to protect us.”

She said residents have said they are afraid to leave their homes to get groceries. “I’m receiving calls … from community members are struggling just to be able to do [everyday] things,” Johnson said.

“That’s why you’re seeing folks being willing to stand in Minnesota, in negative-degree weather, thousands of folks marching … in opposition to the injustice that we are seeing when law and order is not being upheld.”

Racial profiling accusations

In their lawsuit, Minnesota state and local officials have argued that the immigration crackdown amounts to retaliation after Washington’s initial attempts to withhold federal funding to try to force immigration cooperation failed.

They maintain that the surge has amounted to an unconstitutional drain on state and local resources, noting that schools and businesses have been shuttered in the wake of what local officials say are aggressive, poorly trained and armed federal officers.

Ellison, the Minnesota attorney general, also has accused federal agents of racially profiling citizens, unlawfully detaining lawful residents for hours, and stoking fear with their heavy-handed tactics.

The Trump administration has said its operation is aimed at enforcing federal immigration laws as part of the president’s push to carry out the largest deportation operation in US history.

On Saturday, Menendez, the district court judge, said she was not making a final judgement on the state’s overall case in her decision not to issue a temporary restraining order, something that would follow arguments in court.

She also made no determination on whether the immigration crackdown in Minnesota had broken the law.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi called the judge’s decision a “HUGE” win for the Department of Justice.

“Neither sanctuary policies nor meritless litigation will stop the Trump Administration from enforcing federal law in Minnesota,” she wrote on X.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said he was disappointed by the ruling.

“This decision doesn’t change what people here have lived through — fear, disruption, and harm caused by a federal operation that never belonged in Minneapolis in the first place,” Frey said in a statement.

“This operation has not brought public safety. It’s brought the opposite and has detracted from the order we need for a working city. It’s an invasion, and it needs to stop.”

Press freedom groups decry arrest of former CNN anchor as lawyer pledges to fight charges ‘vigorously’.

Journalist Don Lemon has been arrested in connection with his coverage of a protest against United States President Donald Trump’s deadly immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota.

Lemon’s lawyer, Abbe Lowell, said on Friday that the journalist had been arrested in Los Angeles, where he was covering the Grammy Awards.

It was not immediately clear what charges Lemon was facing. In recent weeks, however, the Department of Justice indicated it would target Lemon for his attendance at a January 18 protest, in which demonstrators disrupted a church service in the city of St Paul, Minnesota.

“Don has been a journalist for 30 years, and his constitutionally protected work in Minneapolis was no different than what he has always done,” Lowell said in a statement.

He pointed to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, which protects the freedom of the press.

“The First Amendment exists to protect journalists whose role it is to shine light on the truth and hold those in power accountable,” Lowell said. “Don will fight these charges vigorously and thoroughly in court”.

US Attorney General Pam Bondi confirmed the arrest on Friday, saying Lemon had been taken into custody with three others in connection with what she described as the “coordinated attack on Cities Church in St Paul, Minnesota”.

Lemon was part of a series of arrests that morning, all related to the church demonstration. They included independent journalist Georgia Fort, as well as activists Jamael Lydell Lundy and Trahern Jeen Crews.

Federal authorities had previously arrested Minneapolis civil rights lawyer Nekima Levy Armstrong and two others in connection with the protest.

Press freedom groups swiftly condemned the action, which they called a major escalation in the administration’s attacks on journalists.

“The unmistakable message is that journalists must tread cautiously because the government is looking for any way to target them,” Seth Stern, the chief of advocacy at the Freedom of the Press Foundation, said in a statement.

The National Press Club also denounced the arrests in a statement. “Arresting or detaining journalists for covering protests, public events, or government actions represents a grave threat to press freedom and risks chilling reporting nationwide,” it wrote.

Lemon had previously been an anchor for the CNN news network, but he was fired in 2023. He has since worked as an independent journalist, with a prominent presence on YouTube.

‘I’m here as a journalist’

During his online report from the church protest, Lemon repeatedly identified himself as a reporter as he interviewed both demonstrators and church attendees.

“I’m not here as an activist. I’m here as a journalist,” he told those present.

Protesters had targeted the church, which belongs to the Southern Baptist Convention, due to its pastor, David Easterwood, who also holds a role as the head of a field office for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Critics have questioned why the Justice Department swiftly opened a probe into the church protest, while it declined to open a civil rights investigation into an ICE agent’s killing of Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis on January 7.

The department has not yet said if it will open an investigation into the January 24 killing of US citizen Alex Pretti by border patrol agents in Minneapolis.

“Instead of investigating the federal agents who killed two peaceful Minnesota protesters, the Trump Justice Department is devoting its time, attention and resources to this arrest, and that is the real indictment of wrongdoing in this case,” Lowell said in his statement.

Friday’s arrest comes after a federal judge in Minnesota took the rare move last week of refusing to sign an arrest warrant for Lemon. Justice Department officials nevertheless promised to continue pursuing charges.

France is moving closer to banning social media for users under the age of 15, citing growing concerns over young people’s mental health. The move comes as other European countries consider similar restrictions. Al Jazeera’s Aly Zein Mohamed explains.

The United States Federal Reserve is holding interest rates steady in its first rate decision of 2026.

Rates will remain at 3.5 to 3.75 percent, the Fed said on Wednesday, defying US President Donald Trump’s calls for more aggressive interest rate cuts.

“The Committee seeks to achieve maximum employment and inflation at the rate of 2 percent over the longer run. Uncertainty about the economic outlook remains elevated,” the central bank said in its release announcing the decision.

Wednesday’s decision was widely expected. CME FedWatch, a tool that tracks expectations for monetary policy, forecast a more than 97 percent chance that the central bank would hold rates steady.

The tracker also expects two rate cuts in 2026, with the highest probability for the first cut occurring in June at the earliest.

“Available indicators suggest that economic activity has been expanding at a solid pace. Job gains have remained low, and the unemployment rate has shown some signs of stabilization,” the central bank said.

The decision comes amid signs of stabilisation in the US labour market. The US economy added 584,000 jobs in 2025, marking the lowest annual job growth since 2003. Payrolls rose by 64,000 jobs in October and 50,000 in December. While job growth remains weak, December’s figure represents a modest rebound from October, when the economy lost 105,000 jobs, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics.

There are indications that the labour market may cool further in the months ahead. This week, both Amazon and UPS announced tens of thousands of job cuts, some of which were driven by a push towards increasing the use of artificial intelligence in the workplace.

Another threat to the US economy and the job market comes in the form of a looming government shutdown. That can happen as early as Saturday, and depending on its duration, it could slow spending as federal workers are temporarily left without paycheques.

Political tensions

The decision to hold interest rates steady comes despite Trump’s increased pressure on the central bank to cut rates. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell has long stressed the Federal Reserve’s independence, and Wednesday’s decision is the first since Powell’s rebuke of a criminal Department of Justice investigation into him. The central bank chair, whose term expires in May, called the inquiry a “pretext” to pressure him.

“The threat of criminal charges is a consequence of the Federal Reserve setting interest rates based on our best assessment of what will serve the public, rather than following the preferences of the president,” Powell said in remarks in early January in response to a subpoena.

Last week, the Supreme Court heard arguments in a case examining whether Trump has the legal authority to remove Fed Governor Lisa Cook amid allegations of mortgage fraud.

Meanwhile, Fed Governor Stephan Miran’s term is set to expire this week. Trump picked Miran to temporarily fill the seat vacated by Adriana Kugler in August while seeking a more permanent replacement.

Miran was one of two central bank governors who voted to lower interest rates alongside Christopher Waller.

The developments come as Trump searches for a new Fed chair. He has explicitly called for further interest rate cuts and for a chairman who shares his views.

“Anybody that disagrees with me will never be the Fed Chairman!” Trump said in a post on Truth Social in December.

The political pressure has caught the attention of global central banks as well.

“The Federal Reserve is the biggest, most important central bank in the world, and we all need it to work well. A loss of independence of the Fed would affect us all,” Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem said on Wednesday. Canada’s central bank held rates steady ahead of the US central bank’s decision.

Macklem was one of the central bank heads who earlier this month issued a joint statement backing Powell. Last September, Macklem said Trump’s attempts to pressure the Fed were starting to hit markets.

The Dow Jones Industrial Average is flat, as is the Nasdaq, and the S&P 500 is down 0.1 in midday trading.

United States President Donald Trump’s $5bn lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase resurfaces his accusations of debanking – the act of removing a person or organisation’s access to financial services.

The complaint, filed in a Florida court on Thursday, alleges that the bank singled him out for political reasons and closed several of his accounts following the attack on the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, which was perpetrated by his supporters.

“JPMC does not close accounts for political or religious reasons. We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company. We regret having to do so, but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to do so,” the bank said in a statement.

While the lawsuit was filed in his personal capacity, the concept of debanking has long been in the crosshairs of the Trump White House.

Late last year, the White House launched a high-profile effort targeting the nation’s largest financial institutions, accusing them of closing accounts based on political bias. Within days, Trump signed an executive order restricting banks from denying accounts on those grounds.

Trump has long framed “debanking” as a systemic effort targeting conservatives. But evidence for this claim is limited.

A Reuters news agency review of more than 8,000 complaints to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) found only 35 related to political or religious reasons, let alone targeting Christians or conservatives specifically.

The push by banks centres on the use of “reputational risk” as a standard that allows them to weigh the social or political fallout of doing business with a client.

Critics say this practice makes banks arbiters of morality – freezing, withholding, or closing accounts based not on financial considerations but on social and geopolitical concerns. This approach has pulled financial institutions into the middle of cultural and geopolitical debates.

While often cast as a partisan issue, data show that Trump’s core base, evangelical Christians, are not the ones typically targeted by debanking efforts.

A report from the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding (ISPU), a research organisation that looks at the experience of the US Muslim community, found that 27 percent of Muslim Americans and 14 percent of Jewish Americans have faced trouble banking, compared with negligible rates among Christian denominations, especially with Trump’s core base, evangelicals, at 8 percent.

Overall, 93 percent of Muslim Americans reported experiencing trouble with banking access. In one situation involving Citibank, the New York Chapter of the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR) accused the financial institution of not opening the account of a Muslim woman because of her husband, whom she wanted to nominate as a beneficiary and who is a Palestinian Muslim. CAIR did not release the name of the woman at the centre of the complaint.

“It [debanking] is a huge barrier for actually Muslims fulfilling philanthropic goals,” Erum Ikramullah, a senior research project manager at the ISPU, told Al Jazeera.

“It’s a huge barrier for the actual Muslim-based, Muslim-led organisations who are managing relief both domestically and overseas.”

Between October 2023 and May 2024, at least 30 US nonprofits providing humanitarian aid to Gaza have had accounts closed.

“Muslim Americans and Armenian Americans have faced de-banking on account of their last names,” Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Democrat from Massachusetts who founded the CFPB in 2013, said in a Senate Banking Committee hearing last year.

But Trump continues to allege that groups like Christians and conservatives are the ones discriminated against.

Among them include the National Committee for Religious Freedom, led by former Republican Senator and Kansas Governor Sam Brownback. Brownback alleges that Chase closed his account on religious grounds, a claim the bank denies.

Regardless, the push to take on the problem of debanking is a rare spot of bipartisanship in Washington, with Trump and Warren both agreeing that banks should change their ways.

Industry turmoil

A US banking regulator said last month that the nine largest US banks put restrictions on industries that it deems risky, but this has been a long-term issue for several industries.

Operation Choke Point, under the administration of former Democratic President Barack Obama, targeted exploitative industries like payday lenders and arms dealers. The initiative pushed banks to consider entire categories of businesses – and the individuals who worked in them – as reputationally risky, even when that view lagged cultural sentiment.

In response, Frank Keating, the then-CEO of the American Banking Association, slammed the move in an op-ed in The Wall Street Journal, saying that the “Justice Department [is] telling bankers to behave like policemen and judges”.

Ultimately, that scrutiny affected people working in several industries over the last decade, most particularly in adult entertainment, cannabis, and cryptocurrency.

Within months of the new guidance from the Obama administration, hundreds of adult performers lost access to banking services from Chase Bank. The ability to keep a bank account persisted for adult performers. In 2022, adult performer Alana Evans penned an op-ed for The Daily Beast describing how Wells Fargo closed her account.

The Free Speech Coalition, an adult industry trade group, found that 63 percent of adult workers have lost access to a bank account because of their work in the legal industry, and nearly 50 percent have been rejected for a loan because of the nature of the profession.

“I think that when I talk to a lot of people about this issue, or when I’ve talked to even legislators about this, they really can’t believe it, because it’s never been anything that they’ve encountered personally. The idea that a bank could shut off your account because they disagreed with the type of work you do is sort of inconceivable to most people,” Mike Stabile, the director of public policy for the Free Speech Coalition, told Al Jazeera.

The cannabis business has faced similar problems. Over the last decade, both laws and public sentiment around marijuana use have drastically changed. Now, more people use marijuana daily than drink alcohol, and recreational use is legal in 24 states as well as Washington, DC.

Yet, legitimate businesses that cater to this growing market share and those who work for them have been subject to debanking.

Kyle Sherman, the CEO and founder of Flowhub, a cannabis payment processing company, testified in front of the Senate Banking Committee last year that his employees are routinely discriminated against in consumer banking. He alleged that one of his employees was denied a mortgage because of what he does for a living, as well as others who have had their personal accounts closed.

While state laws have shifted on marijuana’s stance, federal laws have not kept up, making it harder for banks to navigate the reputational risk.

Trump recently eased pressure on the marijuana industry by reclassifying the substance as Schedule III, which means it is less harmful, but it does not change the legality of sale and interstate commerce on the federal level.

“In some of the states that have recently gone legal with recreational and medical cannabis, the individual entrepreneurs [there] were previously considered outlaws. It is hard for a banker to get over the perception that yesterday, you were an illegal activity, and today, you’re a legal activity,” said Terry Mendez, the CEO of Safe Harbor Financial, a financial services company for the cannabis industry.

There has been a bigger about-face with regard to the cryptocurrency industry. At first, crypto was seen as a safe haven for illicit transactions because the underlying technology allowed for anonymous transfers, making it difficult for banks to determine which transactions were legitimate and legal and which ones were not.

As the industry began to move into the mainstream, the challenges were amplified. Exchanges and startups faced debanking or sudden account closures, and even major platforms like Coinbase struggled to maintain reliable banking partners.

“Historically, banks were kind of more naturally averse to crypto companies, going back to like 2018, to 2020, 2021. Crypto companies would often, when registering for accounts with banks, say that they were software development companies to try and avoid the mention of crypto because of fear of not being able to open a bank account, which, of course, then means it’s harder to make a payroll. It’s hard to take in funds from investors; you can’t pay vendors,” Sid Powell, the CEO of the asset management firm Maple Finance, told Al Jazeera.

That was not helped by the collapse of FTX, the notorious cryptocurrency exchange, pushing banks to pull back from working with the crypto industry.

Sentiment is shifting now. Under Trump, who has embraced crypto, financial regulators last year withdrew guidance that suggested that banks should be careful when working with the crypto industry. Powell says the executive order could help crypto avoid debanking in the future.

“It [the executive order] kind of signals to the FDIC and the OCC that they should act in a more balanced way when it comes to crypto companies and crypto startups, instead of taking a more hostile approach, or the approach of kind of lumping everyone in with the worst of the industry, which tended to happen post-FTX,” Powell added.

Powell was referring to the The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, an independent agency created by Congress to maintain stability in the nation’s financial system, and The Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, an independent bureau of the US Department of the Treasury, which charters, regulates, and supervises all national banks, federal savings associations, and federal branches and agencies of foreign banks.

Trump’s personal gripes

Trump has also accused banks of not doing business with him, the primary driver of his interest in the debanking issue.

Banks can generally refuse to create accounts for potential customers who could be deemed as high risk.

“The president’s companies have filed [for] bankruptcy repeatedly. There have been years of reporting about financial institutions’ concerns with suspicious financial activity, and the president was found civilly liable for inflating the value of his assets that served as collateral for loans from financial institutions,” Graham Steele, an academic fellow at the Rock Center for Corporate Governance at Stanford University, told Al Jazeera.

Reuters reported last year that banks gauged Trump as a financial risk due to his plethora of legal challenges after his first term, including the suit brought by E Jean Caroll, which found Trump liable for sexual abuse. He has declared bankruptcy six times.

He also defaulted on loans totalling hundreds of millions of dollars several times, including a loan to Deutsche Bank. In 2024, a New York court ruled that the president fraudulently inflated his financial worth by more than $2bn.

“Notwithstanding the fact that the president is an inherently political figure, a financial institution could reasonably rely on any of these concerns, grounded in financial and legal risks, not ‘political’ beliefs, as a basis for declining to do business with a customer,” Steele said.

That did not stop the president from pointing fingers at banking giants, including Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan.

“I hope you start opening your bank to conservatives, because many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business within the bank, and that includes a place called Bank of America,” Trump told the executive during a Q&A session at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, last year.

The Trump family also sued Capital One last March. The lawsuit alleged that it debanked The Trump Organisation after Trump incited an insurrection at the US Capitol on January 6, 2021, after spreading misinformation alleging that he won the 2020 presidential election even though he had lost by a significant margin.

Trump debanks ‘liberal’ causes

Trump’s rhetoric on debanking is among his latest attempts to punish entities for political bias, while actively pushing actions that punish those who have viewpoints that oppose his own.

Trump has argued that debanking disproportionately targets conservatives and conservative-leaning businesses like firearms manufacturers. His pressure has moved the needle at Citibank. In June, it lifted its ban on banking services to gun sellers and manufacturers, a policy it put in place in 2018 after the shooting in Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, that left 17 people dead.

In March, his administration announced it would shut down a set of climate grants under the Greenhouse Gas Reduction Fund – known as the “green bank” – a $20bn programme created through the bipartisan Inflation Reduction Act signed by his predecessor, President Joe Biden, in 2022 to channel financing for climate projects into underinvested regions.

Environment and Protection Agency (EPA) administrator Lee Zeldin justified the decision by citing “misconduct, conflicts of interest, and potential fraud”, allegations he offered without evidence, and forced Citibank, which was holding the fund’s money for nonprofit distribution, to return the funds to the EPA.

The decision faced legal hurdles. But earlier this month, a US court of appeals allowed the Trump administration to continue axing the programme. The 2-1 ruling was decided by two judges appointed by Trump.

Last year, the White House also pressured companies seeking federal contracts to abandon diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programmes, which it has long portrayed, without evidence, as undermining merit-based hiring.

Citigroup, historically one of the most vocal supporters of DEI in the financial services sector, scrapped its programme. Citibank holds multiple federal contracts with agencies including the Department of Defense and the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

Bank of America and Wells Fargo followed suit in February, scaling back their initiatives as well, as did many other companies.

As part of the Trump administration’s immigration crackdowns, the White House has also pressured banks to cut financial services to immigrants. The administration is doing so by trying to cancel the social security numbers of migrants who have legal status in the US, which would essentially cut them off from access to basic financial services, including bank accounts and credit cards, The New York Times reported.

At the time, Leland Dudek, then the Social Security Administration’s acting commissioner and a Trump administration appointee, said the move to cut access would end their “financial lives”.

“There’s a real telling disconnect. They are saying, on the one hand, we wanna put a thumb on the scale and ensure that conservative groups are included in the financial system, while actively working to push out liberal coded groups by either freezing them out of the bank accounts when they get government grants, or trying to investigate and potentially bring criminal charges against the payment platform that serves liberal groups,” Steele said.

Steele questioned if taking on political bias would actually help communities that do not align with the Trump administration’s stated values and conservative viewpoints.

“I think one of the other concerns here is that a lot of this depends on how the executive order is going to be enforced,” Steele said.