Citigroup has reversed its policy restricting banking services to retail clients selling firearms, ending the practice that was put into place in 2018.
In a statement shared on June 3, the bank said that the decision had been made in response to concerns raised over “fair access” to banking services. As a result, Citigroup said it would “no longer have a specific policy as it relates to firearms.”
The reversal comes after criticism from President Donald Trump and other conservatives regarding “de-banking,” citing what they believe to be unfair practices from U.S. banks preventing conservatives from using their services.
Addressing the World Economic Forum in Davos virtually in January, Trump said: “Many conservatives complain that the banks are not allowing them to do business,” taking aim at U.S. bank CEOs.
Here’s what to know about Citigroup’s reversal and how it fits into wider discussions about banks and politics in America.
What firearms policy did Citigroup reverse?
Citigroup outlined the specifics of its previous restrictions, saying: “Our U.S. Commercial Firearms Policy was implemented in 2018 and pertained to sale of firearms by our retail clients and partners. The policy was intended to promote the adoption of best sales practices as prudent risk management and didn’t address the manufacturing of firearms.”
Since 2018, Citigroup had restricted its services to retail clients selling firearms, requiring them to adhere to three practices. Under the policy, “new retail sector clients or partners,” clients could not sell firearms to those who hadn’t passed a background check, had to restrict the sale of firearms for individuals under 21, and could not sell bump stocks or high-capacity magazines.
In its June 3 update, the bank said that after reviewing its policies, it will be updating its “Employee Code of Conduct” and its “customer-facing Global Financial Access Policy,” to clearly state that the Citigroup does “not discriminate on the basis of political affiliation.”
“These changes reinforce our commitment to serve all clients fairly, and we will continue to work with regulators and elected officials on ways to improve transparency and trust in the banking sector,” the statement continued.
Why did Citigroup initially put the firearms policy into place?
The banking service introduced new restrictions in March 2018 following a shooting at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Florida on Feb. 14 of that year, which left 17 people dead.
The shooter, Nikolas Cruz, aged 19 at the time, was able to obtain firearms after a background check, despite previous warning signs. Both Cruz’s age and circumstances were addressed in Citigroup’s firearm policy.
Not allowing retailers to sell bump stocks was also included in the bank’s 2018 policy, after the device was used during a mass shooting in Las Vegas in 2017.
A bump stock allows semi-automatic rifles to fire at a higher rate, and were banned by the Trump Administration in December 2018. However, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down this ban in 2024.
After the shooting in Parkland, Florida, investment management firm BlackRock also announced that it would be asking for further details and information on business practices from firearms manufacturers and retailers.
In April 2018, Bank of America said that it would be restricting firearms-related business and would stop lending money to manufacturers that make military-inspired weapons to be used by civilians.
In particular, Bank of America started to wind down relationships with manufacturers that produced AR-15 style rifles that have been used in mass shootings.
In 2024, Bank of America loosened some of its restrictions surrounding lending to the firearms and energy industries, amid pressure from politicians in Texas and Florida.
What grievances have Trump and high-profile conservatives aired with U.S. banks?
Criticism amongst conservatives and Republicans have long been aimed at banking institutions for imposing restrictions on firearms and other issues. In 2022, a number of conservative-led states considered a number of new bills, with some passing, penalizing banks for such policies.
According to Reuters, JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Goldman Sachs were all sidelined by state law that barred firms from the municipal bond market if they were found to “discriminate” against the firearms industry in the state.
In April 2024, over a dozen Republican state attorneys general addressed a letter to The Bank of America, raising their concerns with the bank’s “de-banking policies and practices threaten the company’s financial health, its reputation with customers, our nation’s economy, and the civil liberties of everyday Americans.”
Within the letter, Bank of America was criticized for “systemic biases” against political views. The letter cited a report in which the bank is said to have shared a list with the FBI of anyone who had bought a firearm with a credit or debit card from the bank in Washington, D.C., in the days surrounding the Capitol Riots on Jan. 6, 2021.
“We are shocked that Bank of America would so cavalierly disregard its customers’ privacy and their First, Second, and Fourth Amendment rights at the behest of the federal government,” the letter continued.
Shortly after his inauguration in January, Trump launched criticism at banks, in particular at the Bank of America and JPMorgan Chase, during a virtual appearance at the World Economic Forum in Davos.
Speaking directly to Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan, Trump said: “The Bank of America, they don’t take conservative business… you, Jamie (Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan Chase) and everybody, I hope you’re going to open your banks to conservatives because what you're doing is wrong.”
In response, Bank of America said that it “welcomes conservatives” as part of the 70 million customers that it serves. “We would never close accounts for political reasons and don't have a political litmus test,” the bank said in a statement after Trump’s remarks.
Elsewhere, the Trump Organization sued Capitol One in March, accusing the bank of closing hundreds of accounts belonging to the company. In its complaint, the Trump Organization said it believes “that Capital One’s unilateral decision came about as a result of political and social motivations and Capital One’s unsubstantiated, ‘woke’ beliefs that it needed to distance itself from President Trump and his conservative political views.”
The complaint argued that Capitol One’s decision was “part of a growing trend by financial institutions in the United States of America to cut off a consumer’s access to banking services if their political views contradict with those of the financial institution.”
Capitol One responded, requesting that the lawsuit be thrown out, and in turn arguing that the Trump Organization’s complaint “fails to provide any factual or legal support for the claims asserted, requiring dismissal on several grounds.”
Source link
