N※N

JPMorgan Chase Considers Banking Services for Trump's 'Board of Peace'

  //stocks-investing.news-articles.net/content/202 .. banking-services-for-trump-s-board-of-peace.html
  Published in Stocks and Investing on Friday, February 20th 2026 at 0:18 GMT by New York Post
      Locales: New York, Florida, Washington, D.C., UNITED STATES

New York, NY - February 20th, 2026 - JPMorgan Chase is reportedly in discussions to provide financial services to a policy report being developed by Donald Trump's "Board of Peace," a move that's already sparking debate and raising questions about the intersection of finance and politics. Sources close to the negotiations indicate the former president's team has been actively seeking a banking partner for the project, facing challenges in securing agreements following previous experiences with financial institutions.

While both Trump's representatives and JPMorgan Chase have remained officially silent on the matter, the potential deal signifies a continued effort to establish financial infrastructure for ventures associated with the former president. Trump has faced significant hurdles in maintaining banking relationships in recent years, following the fallout from the January 6th Capitol attack and subsequent investigations. Several banks previously severed ties with him and his businesses, citing reputational risks.

The "Board of Peace" report is described as an outline of Trump's vision for international peace and conflict resolution. Details surrounding the report's specific policy proposals remain sparse, but it's anticipated to cover key geopolitical hotspots and Trump's proposed approaches to diplomacy, trade, and security. Observers speculate the report is intended as both a think-tank style contribution to public discourse and a potential platform for future political endeavors. Given Trump's past rhetoric on international relations, which often prioritized bilateral deals and questioned multilateral alliances, the report is expected to offer a distinctly different perspective on global affairs than currently employed by the Biden administration.

JPMorgan's consideration of this deal places the bank in a complex position. On one hand, the bank, as a global financial leader, has a responsibility to provide services to a broad range of clients, provided they meet legal and regulatory requirements. Refusing service based solely on political affiliation could be seen as discriminatory. On the other hand, associating with a controversial figure like Trump carries inherent reputational risks, especially given JPMorgan's commitment to environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles.

"This is a delicate dance for JPMorgan," says Dr. Eleanor Vance, a professor of political science at Columbia University. "They have to weigh the potential financial benefits against the potential backlash from shareholders, employees, and customers who may disapprove of doing business with Trump. It's a calculated risk, and the potential rewards are likely tied to the scope and funding of the 'Board of Peace' initiative."

The terms of any potential agreement are currently unknown, but industry analysts suggest JPMorgan would likely perform extensive due diligence to ensure compliance with anti-money laundering (AML) and know-your-customer (KYC) regulations. The bank will likely scrutinize the funding sources for the "Board of Peace" report and the intended use of the funds. Any indication of illicit activity or improper financial practices would almost certainly derail the deal.

Furthermore, the decision comes at a time when financial institutions are under increasing pressure from both sides of the political spectrum. Republicans accuse banks of "de-banking" conservatives, while Democrats criticize them for supporting businesses with questionable environmental or social records. JPMorgan has previously found itself caught in the crosshairs of both criticisms. The bank's CEO, Jamie Dimon, has publicly emphasized the importance of maintaining a non-partisan approach to banking, but the Trump deal risks being perceived as a clear tilt toward one side.

Beyond the immediate financial and reputational implications, this potential partnership raises broader questions about the future of political finance. As traditional sources of funding for political campaigns and think tanks become more restricted, figures like Trump may increasingly rely on alternative financial arrangements. The involvement of a major bank like JPMorgan could legitimize these arrangements and pave the way for further collaboration between the financial sector and politically charged initiatives.

The outcome of these discussions will be closely watched by both the financial and political worlds, as it sets a precedent for how banks navigate the increasingly polarized landscape of American politics. A definitive decision is expected within the coming weeks.