President Donald Trump on Thursday accused the CEOs of the two largest American banks of refusing to serve conservatives, reviving a 2024 campaign talking point that the two companies deny.
Speaking via video to an assembly held at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Trump lashed out at Bank of America CEO Brian Moynihan and JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon as part of a question-and-answer session.
“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 included a place called Bank of America,” Trump said.
“You and Jamie and everybody, I hope you’re going to open your banks to conservatives, because what you’re doing is wrong,” Trump said.
Moynihan, who was among a few executives selected to ask the president questions during the Q&A, didn’t immediately respond to the accusation.
Both banks deny refusing service to conservatives.
“We serve more than 70 million clients, we welcome conservatives and have no political litmus test,” a Bank of America official said in an email.
“We have never and would never close an account for political reasons, full stop,” a JPMorgan spokeswoman said in a statement. “We follow the law and guidance from our regulators and have long said there are problems with the current framework Washington must address.”
In the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis, caused in part by shoddy lending standards at major banks, U.S. regulators increased pressure on lenders to purge clients in industries considered higher risk for money laundering or fraud. That meant that payday lenders, pawn ships, firearms dealers, and those involved in pornography had their accounts revoked, often with little notice or explanation as to why.
As recently as October, Trump singled out Bank of America, repeating claims that it discriminates against conservatives.
The accusations may have roots in allegations from state attorneys general last year. In April, Kansas Attorney General Kris Kobach sent a letter to Moynihan, accusing the bank of canceling the accounts of “multiple religious groups with mainstream views in the last three years.”
In a May letter in response to Kobach, Bank of America said accounts are de-banked for reasons including a change of stated purpose of the account, the expected level or type of activity on the account, or failure to verify certain documentation required by law.
One account highlighted by Kobach was de-banked because it engaged in debt collection services, which was inconsistent with the Bank of America division that was servicing the account, according to the bank’s response.
“We would like to provide clarity around a very straightforward matter: Religious beliefs or political view-based beliefs are never a factor in any decisions related to our client’s accounts,” the bank said in that letter. “Bank of America provides banking services to non-profit organizations affiliated with faith-based communities throughout the United States. We have banking and investing relationships with approximately 120,000 faith-based clients in the United States.”
Influential people in Trump’s orbit have continued to claim that banks are discriminating based on religion or politics.
In November, Marc Andreessen, co-founder of the venture capital firm that bears his name, told podcaster Joe Rogan that dozens of startup founders had been de-banked in recent years. Andreesen has said he advises Trump on technology matters.
Bank of America shares were up more than 1% on Thursday, with JPMorgan shares higher as well.
The banking industry is seen as one of the biggest beneficiaries of the election of Trump, in large part because of expectations he would kill Biden-era regulatory efforts to force banks to hold tens of billions of dollars in additional capital against losses, make annual stress tests less opaque and drop efforts to cap credit card and overdraft limitations.
U.S. Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell testifies before a Senate Banking, Housing and Urban Affairs Committee hearing on “The Semiannual Monetary Policy Report to the Congress,” at Capitol Hill in Washington, U.S., Feb. 11, 2025.
Craig Hudson | Reuters
The popular narrative among Federal Reserve policymakers these days is that policy is “well-positioned” to adjust to any upside or downside risks ahead. However, it might be more accurate to say that policy is stuck in position.
With an abundance of unknowns swirling through the economy and the halls of Washington, the only gear the central bank really can be in these days is neutral as it begins what could be a long wait for certainty on what’s actually ahead.
“In recent weeks, we’ve heard not only enthusiasm — particularly from banks, about possible shifts in tax and regulatory policies — but also widespread apprehension about future trade and immigration policy,” Atlanta Fed President Raphael Bostic said in a blog post. “These crosscurrents inject still more complexity into policymaking.”
Bostic’s comments came during an active week for what is known on Wall Street as “Fedspeak,” or the chatter that happens between policy meetings from Chair Jerome Powell, central bank governors and regional presidents.
Officials who have spoken frequently described policy as “well-positioned” — the language is now a staple of post-meeting statements. But increasingly, they are expressing caution about the volatility coming from President Donald Trump’s aggressive trade and economic agenda, as well as other factors that could influence policy.
“Uncertainty” is an increasingly common theme. In fact, Bostic titled his Thursday blog post “Uncertainty Calls for Caution, Humility in Policymaking.” A day earlier, the rate-setting Federal Open Market Committee released minutes from the Jan. 28-29 meeting, with a dozen references to the uncertain climate in the document.
The minutes specifically cited “elevated uncertainty regarding the scope, timing, and potential economic effects of possible changes to trade, immigration, fiscal, and regulatory policies.”
Uncertainty factors into the Fed’s decision making in two ways: the impact that it has on the employment picture, which has been relatively stable, and inflation, which has been easing but could rise again as consumers and business leaders get spooked about the impact tariffs could have on prices.
Missing the target
The Fed targets inflation at 2%, a goal that has remained elusive for going on four years.
“Right now, I see the risks of inflation staying above target as skewed to the upside,” St. Louis Fed President Alberto Musalem told reporters Thursday. “My baseline scenario is one where inflation continues to converge towards 2%, providing monetary policy remains modestly restrictive, and that will take time. I think there is a potential for inflation to remain high and activity to slow. … That’s an alternative scenario, not a baseline scenario, but I’m attentive to it.”
The operative in Musalem’s comment is that policy holds at “modestly restrictive,” which is where he considers the current level of the fed funds rate between 4.25%-4.5%. Bostic was a little less explicit on feeling the need to keep rates on hold, but emphasized that “this is no time for complacency” and noted that “additional threats to price stability may emerge.”
Chicago Federal Reserve President Austan Goolsbee, thought to be among the least hawkish FOMC members when it comes to inflation, was more measured in his assessment of tariffs and did not offer commentary in separate appearances, including one on CNBC, on where he thinks rates should go.
“If you’re just thinking about tariffs, it depends how many countries are they going to apply to, and how big are they going to be, and the more it looks like a Covid-sized shock, the more nervous you should be,” Goolsbee said.
Many risks ahead
More broadly, though, the January minutes indicated a Fed highly attuned to potential shocks and not interested in testing the waters with any further interest rate moves. The meeting summary pointedly noted that committee members want “further progress on inflation before making additional adjustments to the target range for the federal funds rate.”
There’s also more than just tariffs and inflation to worry about.
The minutes characterized the risks to financial stability as “notable,” specifically in the area of leverage and the level of long-duration debt that banks are holding.
Prominent economist Mark Zandi — not normally an alarmist — said in a panel discussion presented by the Peter G. Peterson Foundation that he worries about dangers to the $46.2 trillion U.S. bond market.
“In my view, the biggest risk is that we see a major sell off in the bond market,” said Zandi, the chief economist at Moody’s Analytics. “The bond market feels incredibly fragile to me. The plumbing is broken. The primary dealers aren’t keeping up with the amount of debt outstanding.”
“There’s just so many things coming together that I think there’s a very significant threat that at some point over the next 12 months, we see a major sell-off in the bond market,” he added.
In this climate, he said, there’s scant chance for the Fed to cut rates — though markets are pricing in the potential for a half percentage point in reductions by the end of the year.
That’s wishful thinking considering tariffs and other intangibles hanging over the Fed’s head, Zandi said.
“I just don’t see the Fed cutting interest rates here until you get a better feel about inflation coming back to target,” he said. “The economy came into 2025 in a pretty good spot. Feels like it’s performing well. Should be able to weather a lot of storms. But it feels like there’s a lot of storms coming.”
Alibaba is back in the spotlight — with U.S.-traded shares soaring nearly 70% so far in 2025 — as a favored play on Chinese artificial intelligence. The company said Thursday its AI-related product revenue grew by triple digits for a sixth-straight quarter in the period ended December. Its Qwen AI model has proven itself a capable rival to DeepSeek , along with winning a deal for iPhones sold in China . Founder Jack Ma, once politically sidelined, made his latest public reappearance on Feb. 17 — with a front-row seat at a rare meeting Chinese President Xi Jinping held with entrepreneurs , including DeepSeek’s Liang Wenfeng. Several analysts think Alibaba’s gains will continue, with Jefferies setting a $156 price target as of Feb. 20. That’s upside of more than 8% from Friday’s close of $143.75. UBS equity strategists on Thursday said they have switched out PDD for Alibaba in a model portfolio “given its exposure to AI and quant factors.” Remember how just several months ago the Temu parent had a larger market cap , raising concerns that Alibaba was struggling to compete on its core e-commerce business? Taobao and Tmall Group saw sales rise 5% in the latest quarter. As excited as many investors are about AI opportunities in China, crowding into related stocks has only picked up by 0.02 so far this year on UBS’s scoring system. That’s far below the increase of 0.2 in the crowding score for U.S. AI-related names over the last two years, UBS said. Alibaba had the highest crowding score among large Chinese internet technology names, the report said. “Our Quants team’s analysis previously suggested that stocks with reasonable but improving crowding have seen the most near-term outperformance.” Hong Kong’s Hang Seng index hit a three-year high Friday with China Unicom, Lenovo and Alibaba’s locally traded shares leading gains. “Should investors rotate from Alibaba to the AI trade laggers (i.e. Tencent and Baidu)? Not for now,” JPMorgan internet analyst Alex Yao wrote in a Feb. 17 note. “We think both Tencent and Baidu’s share prices could be driven by AI development in different ways with different risks.” U.S.-listed shares of Baidu are up by about 8% for the year so far, despite the company sharing on Feb. 18 that its AI Cloud revenue rose 26% year-on-year to 7.1 billion yuan in the fourth quarter. Hong Kong-traded shares of Tencent , which has yet to report earnings for the period, have risen by about 24% for the year so far. JPMorgan is neutral on Baidu, but overweight on Tencent and Alibaba. The firm has a price target of $125 on Alibaba shares, suggesting a 13% decline from Friday’s close. At least four other major investment firms have a buy rating on Alibaba. But Morgan Stanley is notably more cautious with an equal-weight rating and a price target of $100. That would imply a drop of 30% from Friday’s close. The firm pointed out that Alibaba’s capital expenditures were 11% of revenue in the latest quarter, versus 3% in the prior quarter — a potential weight on future margins that management warned about. Morgan Stanley also highlighted risks such as weaker consumption and a slower pace of enterprise digitalization. — CNBC’s Michael Bloom contributed to this report.
Former Walmart U.S. CEO Bill Simon contends the retailer’s stock sell-off tied to a slowing profit growth forecast and tariff fears is creating a major opportunity for investors.
“I absolutely thought their guidance was pretty strong given the fact that… nobody knows what’s going to happen with tariffs,” he told CNBC’s “Fast Money” on Thursday, the day Walmart reported fiscal fourth-quarter results.
But even if U.S. tariffs against Canada and Mexico move forward, Simon predicts “nothing” should happen to Walmart.
“Ultimately, the consumer decides whether there’s a tariff or not,” said Simon. “There’s a tariff on avocados from Mexico. Do you have guacamole with your chips or do you have salsa and queso where there is no tariff?”
Plus, Simon, who’s now on the Darden Restaurants board and is the chairman at Hanesbrands, sees Walmart as a nimble retailer.
“The big guys, Walmart,Costco,Target, Amazon… have the supply and the sourcing capability to mitigate tariffs by redirecting the product – bringing it in from different places [and] developing their own private labels,” said Simon. “Those guys will figure out tariffs.”
Walmart shares just saw their worst weekly performance since May 2022 — tumbling almost 9%. The stock price fell more than 6% on its earnings day alone. It was the stock’s worst daily performance since November 2023.
Simon thinks the sell-off is bizarre.
“I thought if you hit your numbers and did well and beat your earnings, things would usually go well for you in the market. But little do we know. You got to have some magic dust,” he said. “I don’t know how you could have done much better for the quarter.”
It’s a departure from his stance last May on “Fast Money” when he warned affluent consumers were creating a “bubble” at Walmart. It came with Walmart shares hitting record highs. He noted historical trends pointed to an eventual shift back to service from convenience and price.
But now Simon thinks the economic and geopolitical backdrop is so unprecedented, higher-income consumers may shop at Walmart permanently.
“If you liked that story yesterday before the earnings release, you should love it today because it’s… cheaper,” said Simon.
Walmart stock is now down 10% from its all-time high hit on Feb. 14. However, it’s still up about 64% over the past 52 weeks.
Sign up for the Spotlight newsletter, a hand curated collection of video clips selected by CNBC’s top editors and producers. Your daily recap of top business highlights and leading stories.