Citigroup Reverses Its Firearms Policy Months After Trump Called Out U.S. Banks. Here's What to Know
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.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
27 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
I didn't want to need free groceries
So I share Kidder's lament that feeding the hungry is on track to be a growth industry in Donald Trump's America. The Get The Gavel A weekly SCOTUS explainer newsletter by columnist Kimberly Atkins Stohr. Enter Email Sign Up Experience first. Before 2009, as the son of a judge and the privileged middle class, I'd never been unemployed and in need of charity in three decades of working. I loved what I did, even though freelance writing is a constant scramble for income. I've always read a book before bed; as a freelancer, I chose only books for which I was earning a reviewer's paycheck. Advertisement When the recession and its double-digit unemployment hit, the 'subprime mortgages,' 'mortgage-backed securities,' and unregulated 'shadow banks' that underlay them — and that many Americans had never heard of — unleashed work-killing forces too devastating for individual initiative to counter. Even wealthy Harvard scrapped a lucrative project (by my bank account's standards) that I'd done for four straight summers. My then-wife's part-time job invaluably backstopped the family income. But after a year of little work and with no idea how long I'd be idle, I despaired of ever being employed again. Free groceries to stretch our household resources seemed the only responsible path, especially with a child to feed. Advertisement The other folks in St. Paul's basement made for an interesting cross-section of people. Some were fellow baby boomers. The age and dress of others suggested they were students, presumably not destitute but nevertheless on a budget as they contended with Greater Boston's formidable living costs. No one dressed in rags. (Neither did the recipients Kidder observed, which he attributes to their efforts 'to ward off disgrace' from having to seek charity.) My anxious heart beat fast during my first time at the pantry. Normally a chatterbox, I made little small talk with others. It took a number of weeks before the habitual visits and the saintly volunteers' freedom from judgment thawed some of my embarrassment. I also found psychic balm in the relief of free food for my household's budget. Not everyone adjusted as easily. At least one person at the pantry teared up at having to seek aid in public. I never saw her return. Advertisement The volunteers who set out and distributed food never questioned who we were or why we were there. Hard hearts will call that poor quality control. Those who know better, who relied on the kindness of these strangers, recognize it as mindfulness of recipients' dignity. Today, those who do such work can't fully backfill the Beautiful Bill's shrinkage of the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP, formerly called food stamps). Kidder notes that the national food bank network Feeding America says SNAP supplied nine times as much food as its own agency's food banks do. That the bill's backers had not just food support but the broader safety net in their sights is clear from the legislation's attaching work requirements to Medicaid. Two years ago, perhaps anticipating this dark American moment, Republican Representative Steve Scalise Yet do work. Work requirements Perhaps if our leaders saw who goes to food pantries and why — perhaps if they spent a week or two living as pantry patrons — the mythic myopia would lift from their eyes. But there are none so blind as those who will not see. Advertisement
CNN
28 minutes ago
- CNN
Appeals court keeps order blocking Trump administration from indiscriminate immigration sweeps
Immigration Donald TrumpFacebookTweetLink Follow A federal appeals court ruled Friday night to uphold a lower court's temporary order blocking the Trump administration from conducting indiscriminate immigration stops and arrests in Southern California. A three-judge panel of the Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals held a hearing Monday afternoon at which the federal government asked the court to overturn a temporary restraining order issued July 12 by Judge Maame E. Frimpong, arguing it hindered their enforcement of immigration law. Immigrant advocacy groups filed suit last month accusing President Donald Trump's administration of systematically targeting brown-skinned people in Southern California during the administration's crackdown on illegal immigration. The lawsuit included three detained immigrants and two U.S. citizens as plaintiffs. In her order, Frimpong said there was a 'mountain of evidence' that federal immigration enforcement tactics were violating the Constitution. She wrote the government cannot use factors such as apparent race or ethnicity, speaking Spanish or English with an accent, presence at a location such as a tow yard or car wash, or someone's occupation as the only basis for reasonable suspicion to detain someone. The Los Angeles region has been a battleground with the Trump administration over its aggressive immigration strategy that spurred protests and the deployment of the National Guards and Marines for several weeks. Federal agents have rounded up immigrants without legal status to be in the U.S. from Home Depots, car washes, bus stops, and farms, many who have lived in the country for decades. Among the plaintiffs is Los Angeles resident Brian Gavidia, who was shown in a video taken by a friend June 13 being seized by federal agents as he yells, 'I was born here in the states, East LA bro!' They want to 'send us back to a world where a US citizen … can be grabbed, slammed against a fence and have his phone and ID taken from him just because he was working at a tow yard in a Latino neighborhood,' American Civil Liberties Union attorney Mohammad Tajsar told the court. The federal government argued that it hadn't been given enough time to collect and present evidence in the lawsuit, given that it was filed shortly before the July 4 holiday and a hearing was held the following week. 'It's a very serious thing to say that multiple federal government agencies have a policy of violating the Constitution,' attorney Jacob Roth said. He also argued that the lower court's order was too broad, and that immigrant advocates did not present enough evidence to prove that the government had an official policy of stopping people without reasonable suspicion. He referred to the four factors of race, language, presence at a location, and occupation that were listed in the temporary restraining order, saying the court should not be able to ban the government from using them at all. He also argued that the order was unclear on what exactly is permissible under law. 'Legally, I think it's appropriate to use the factors for reasonable suspicion,' Roth said The judges sharply questioned the government over their arguments. 'No one has suggested that you cannot consider these factors at all,' Judge Jennifer Sung said. However, those factors alone only form a 'broad profile' and don't satisfy the reasonable suspicion standard to stop someone, she said. Sung, a Biden appointee, said that in an area like Los Angeles, where Latinos make up as much as half the population, those factors 'cannot possibly weed out those who have undocumented status and those who have documented legal status.' She also asked: 'What is the harm to being told not to do something that you claim you're already not doing?'
31 minutes ago
After a reference to Trump's impeachments is removed from a history museum, complex questions echo
NEW YORK -- It would seem the most straightforward of notions: A thing takes place, and it goes into the history books or is added to museum exhibits. But whether something even gets remembered and how — particularly when it comes to the history of a country and its leader — is often the furthest thing from simple. The latest example of that came Friday, when the Smithsonian Institution said it had removed a reference to the 2019 and 2021 impeachments of President Donald Trump from a panel in an exhibition about the American presidency. Trump has pressed institutions and agencies under federal oversight, often through the pressure of funding, to focus on the country's achievements and progress and away from things he terms 'divisive.' A Smithsonian spokesperson said the removal of the reference, which had been installed as part of a temporary addition in 2021, came after a review of 'legacy content recently' and the exhibit eventually 'will include all impeachments.' There was no time frame given for when; exhibition renovations can be time- and money-consuming endeavors. In a statement that did not directly address the impeachment references, White House spokesperson Davis Ingle said: 'We are fully supportive of updating displays to highlight American greatness.' But is history intended to highlight or to document — to report what happened, or to serve a desired narrative? The answer, as with most things about the past, can be intensely complex. The Smithsonian's move comes in the wake of Trump administration actions like removing the name of a gay rights activist from a Navy ship, pushing for Republican supporters in Congress to defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting and getting rid of the leadership at the Kennedy Center. 'Based on what we have been seeing, this is part of a broader effort by the president to influence and shape how history is depicted at museums, national parks, and schools,' said Julian E. Zelizer, a professor of history and public affairs at Princeton University. 'Not only is he pushing a specific narrative of the United States but, in this case, trying to influence how Americans learn about his own role in history.' It's not a new struggle, in the world generally and the political world particularly. There is power in being able to shape how things are remembered, if they are remembered at all — who was there, who took part, who was responsible, what happened to lead up to that point in history. And the human beings who run things have often extended their authority to the stories told about them. In China, for example, references to the June 1989 crackdown on pro-democracy demonstrators in Beijing's Tiananmen Square are forbidden and meticulously regulated by the ruling Communist Party government. In Soviet-era Russia, officials who ran afoul of leaders like Josef Stalin disappeared not only from the government itself but from photographs and history books where they once appeared. Jason Stanley, an expert on authoritarianism, said controlling what and how people learn of their past has long been used as a vital tool to maintain power. Stanley has made his views about the Trump administration clear; he recently left Yale University to join the University of Toronto, citing concerns over the U.S. political situation. 'If they don't control the historical narrative,' he said, 'then they can't create the kind of fake history that props up their politics.' In the United States, presidents and their families have always used their power to shape history and calibrate their own images. Jackie Kennedy insisted on cuts in William Manchester's book on her husband's 1963 assassination, 'The Death of a President.' Ronald Reagan and his wife got a cable TV channel to release a carefully calibrated documentary about him. Those around Franklin D. Roosevelt, including journalists of the era, took pains to mask the impact that paralysis had on his body and his mobility. Trump, though, has taken it to a more intense level — a sitting president encouraging an atmosphere where institutions can feel compelled to choose between him and the truth — whether he calls for it directly or not. 'We are constantly trying to position ourselves in history as citizens, as citizens of the country, citizens of the world,' said Robin Wagner-Pacifici, professor emerita of sociology at the New School for Social Research. 'So part of these exhibits and monuments are also about situating us in time. And without it, it's very hard for us to situate ourselves in history because it seems like we just kind of burst forth from the Earth.' Timothy Naftali, director of the Richard M. Nixon Presidential Library and Museum from 2007 to 2011, presided over its overhaul to offer a more objective presentation of Watergate — one not beholden to the president's loyalists. In an interview Friday, he said he was 'concerned and disappointed' about the Smithsonian decision. Naftali, now a senior researcher at Columbia University, said museum directors 'should have red lines' and that he considered removing the Trump panel to be one of them. While it might seem inconsequential for someone in power to care about a museum's offerings, Wagner-Pacifici says Trump's outlook on history and his role in it — earlier this year, he said the Smithsonian had 'come under the influence of a divisive, race-centered ideology' — shows how important those matters are to people in authority. 'You might say about that person, whoever that person is, their power is so immense and their legitimacy is so stable and so sort of monumental that why would they bother with things like this ... why would they bother to waste their energy and effort on that?' Wagner-Pacifici said. Her conclusion: 'The legitimacy of those in power has to be reconstituted constantly. They can never rest on their laurels.'
