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
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump can't save Olympic sports through executive order, but he can by funding them
There is probably little good that can come from President Trump's executive order on college sports given that it's legally questionable, vaguely written in terms of enforcement and an unpredictable stick of dynamite thrown into the middle of legislative movement on the current SCORE Act making its way through the House of Representatives. But rather than trying to limit by presidential edict how and what college athletes get paid, there is something Trump could do that would address one of the major concerns for his administration. Much of the executive order focuses on protecting opportunities for Olympic sport athletes. With athletic budgets getting squeezed by up to $20.5 million going directly to athletes thanks to the House vs. NCAA settlement, there's widespread fear that non-revenue programs across the country will be on the chopping block. And given the NCAA's role as the de facto development system for much of America's success at the Olympics every four years, a significantly smaller allotment of scholarships could mean both fewer educational opportunities for young people and an erosion of America's standing on the medal table. So here's a suggestion for the Trump Administration: Want to leave a legacy for Olympic sports? Use government money to fund them. Dan Wolken: Attempts to curb payments to college athletes keep failing. There's only one way forward. In nearly every country around the world except the United States of America, federal dollars are funding Olympic sports programs. But here, it's the responsibility of the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee and college athletic departments. The former is funded by corporate sponsorships and private donations. The latter is funded by college football. That system, imperfect as it may be, has worked for a long time. If it doesn't work anymore because the economics of college sports have changed, then we need to tweak the system. And if international domination of swimming, track and field and gymnastics is a priority for America, then what's the problem with taxpayers having a little skin in the game? It's not as if public dollars paying for sports is a new concept in this country. You can find the evidence by driving past nearly any pro stadium or arena if you live in a major city. Surely there are some smart people who can figure out how to build a federally funded joint partnership between the USOPC, various National Governing Bodies and the NCAA that coordinates and supports elite athlete development in a handful of Olympic sports that matter most, allowing schools to focus on providing opportunities and educating those who need athletic scholarships to attend college. Admittedly, this idea is a little radical, potentially impractical and rife with unintended consequences. But one way it could work, at least in theory, is that a certain percentage of the top American recruits in the key Olympic pipeline sports would go into a recruiting pool. When they choose a school, this government-funded organization would pay for the four-year scholarship, attach an NIL payment for the athlete to represent the organization and provide a grant to the school as reimbursement for the development cost. To make it more equitable, schools would be limited to a certain number of recruits every year from that elite pool of athletes. The rest of the roster would be filled with either foreign athletes or non-elite American recruits that they must pay for themselves. One obvious criticism of this plan is that smaller schools would get squeezed out even further, given that they're more likely to have a budget crisis than a Texas or an Ohio State and less likely to recruit elite athletes. This might require the NCAA to rethink how it stratifies schools into three divisions and instead move toward a two-tiered model where you either meet certain scholarship and funding standards to be in the Olympic development division or compete in the non-Olympic division, which would functionally be more like intramural or club sports. And maybe none of this is workable. But the point is, it's time to come up with some creative, bold solutions rather than just whining about how schools can't afford to pay for their non-revenue sports anymore. For many, many years, the USOPC has gotten a free ride on the back of the NCAA system, which has only been possible because universities illegally colluded not to share revenues with the athletes that played a significant role in generating them. But the good news is, all the systems are in place to keep Team USA's supremacy intact. There has to be a way for more formal collaboration between the USOPC and the NCAA that can save scholarships, development opportunities and teams from being cut. It just needs the funding. And the federal government can make that happen. Trump can make that happen. If he wants a real and lasting legacy as a president who kept the Olympic movement stable at a time of necessary change in college sports, that's how he can do it. Not an executive order destined to be picked apart and ultimately made irrelevant. This article originally appeared on USA TODAY: Donald Trump can't save Olympic sports through EO, but could do this
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Commentary: Paramount appeased Trump — but now it has to battle Colbert and all his friends
There may be a new entrant in the annals of corporate hole-digging: Media titan Paramount, which owns CBS and recently said it's canceling the top-rated "Late Show with Stephen Colbert." Paramount said it needs to cancel the Colbert show for 'financial reasons' and leaked reports likely sourced to the company suggest the show loses around $40 million per year. But the decision reeks of Trumpian subterfuge, putting Paramount in the fraught corporate position of picking sides in one of President Trump's many disputes over business and cultural priorities. Paramount plans to merge this year with media firm Skydance, to help stabilize its finances and ease the transition from legacy media behemoth to a nimbler streaming operation. The two companies agreed on the $8 billion deal last year, when Joe Biden was president. The Securities and Exchange Commission approved the deal in February. That left the Federal Communications Commission, which must also sign off since the deal involves the transfer of broadcast licenses. FCC approval was 'widely seen as a formality,' as Deadline reported in April. But it didn't come until July 24, months later than would have been likely under any president other than Trump. In the meanwhile, Paramount paid tribute to Trump in unprecedented ways likely to dog the company for months or years, with the cancellation of Colbert's show fueling a barrage of criticism from Colbert himself and many allies, some of it on Paramount's own airwaves. Paramount clearly didn't anticipate this sort of trouble when it arranged the deal last year. But when Trump won the presidency in November, Paramount faced new barriers to a buyout that otherwise might have been routine. That's because of Trump's personal beef with CBS and the news show "60 Minutes." Trump sued the network last year as an individual, claiming the show distorted a 2024 interview with Kamala Harris, Trump's foe in the presidential election, to give her favorable treatment. Shortly after taking office in January, Trump appointed loyalist Brendan Carr to head the FCC. Then Trump converted the formerly independent agency into an arm of the White House's policy and political operations. One of Carr's first moves as Trump's FCC boss was opening an investigation into the CBS for its interview with Harris, an unprecedented effort to use government power to intimidate a news organization. 'The chairman of the FCC has cagily created a new and coercive technique for operating outside the agency's established statutes and procedures to attack corporate decisions he and Donald Trump do not like,' former FCC commissioner Tom Wheeler, now of the Brookings Institution, wrote in February. 'Prime targets are media company editorial decisions.' The Los Angeles Times and other news organizations reported that Shari Redstone, non-executive chair of umbrella company Paramount Global, pushed her executives to settle with Trump. Redstone and her family stand to net about $1.75 billion from the Skydance deal. So she has a clear interest in pushing barriers to the deal out of the way. That may explain why earlier this month, Paramount and CBS agreed to settle the Trump lawsuit for $16 million. Colbert roasts Trump regularly on his show and is far more political than David Letterman, whom he replaced in 2015. On July 14, the cheeky host called the $16 million Paramount payment to Trump 'a big, fat bribe'—on CBS's own air. Three days later, Paramount canceled Colbert's show. There's no public evidence that the company axed Colbert to appease Trump. Yet it did please Trump. 'I absolutely love that Colbert got fired,' Trump posted to social media on July 18. Then on July 24, Paramount received the FCC blessing to close the deal with Skydance. Mission accomplished ... Except for what is sure to be a very messy aftermath. Colbert's contract lasts until next May (same as the tenure for embattled Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell), and the show will air until then. 'For the next 10 months, the gloves are off,' Colbert told his audience on July cronies Anderson Cooper, Andy Cohen, Jimmy Fallon, Seth Myers, Jon Stewart, John Oliver, Adam Sandler, Christopher McDonald, Lin-Manuel Miranda, and Weird Al Yankovic joined that show for a spoof that ended with a Trump-Paramount kiss-cam exposé. The same day, Jon Stewart devoted half of his weekly Comedy Central program to blasting Paramount for trying to 'make yourselves so innocuous, that you can serve a gruel so flavorless, that you will never again be on the boy king's radar.' Stewart ended the show with a musical number, backed by a gospel quintet, featuring the refrain 'Go f— yourself,' which may or may not become an instant classic but is certainly giggly. Stewart's show, like Colbert's, runs on a network owned by Paramount. So does the animated series "South Park," which just debuted the premiere episode of its 27th season, in which a fictional Trump tries to seduce a [fictional] Satan, who mocks fictional Trump for having diminutive [fictional] genitalia. Maybe Paramount won the battle. But will it win the war? Will Trump really be satisfied that Colbert's Paramount-supported mockery of him might continue until next year? Or that Stewart and the diabolical "South Park" brain trust will keep tweaking him indefinitely? If Paramount cites contractual obligations requiring it to continue airing the Trump-bashing resistance, will Trump nod and say, right, of course? Big public companies make mistakes all the time. The memorable ones are those compounded by a corporate reaction that amplifies the original sin and makes everything worse. In 2023, Target tried to back away from its own LGBTQ outreach effort, offending the very people it was wooing and making no new friends in the process. In 2017, United Airlines appeared to defend thuggish security guards who forcibly dragged a passenger off a plane, igniting a firestorm of bad publicity that wiped nearly $1.5 billion off its market value. Uber co-founder Travis Kalanick resigned as CEO in 2017 after failing to shake months of controversy over a toxic company culture rife with sexual harassment and discrimination. Those incidents are now textbook examples of how to worsen a crisis, rather than fix it. Paramount now seems headed toward its own chapter in that cringy volume. Colbert, Stewart, et al. won't do Trump any harm, since they've been slamming him for years and have long been speaking to like-minded audiences. But now they're aiming their comedic lances at Paramount, which most of their viewers have probably never thought much about. That will change. Rick Newman is a senior columnist for Yahoo Finance. Follow him on Bluesky and X: @rickjnewman. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices.
Yahoo
17 minutes ago
- Yahoo
President Trump's executive order on college sports: Here's what it actually means
WASHINGTON, D.C. — On Thursday morning in the nation's capital, NCAA president Charlie Baker spoke to a few dozen members and guests of the National Press Club — an operation located in Washington's downtown, just a short walk to the White House. Just hours later, the association's years-long fight for federal intervention in college sports received, perhaps, a boost from the man living just a few blocks away. President Donald Trump released his long-awaited executive order related to college athletics, announcing in a five-page order titled 'SAVING COLLEGE SPORTS' that he is directing members of his cabinet to create policy around several aspects of the industry that protect the NCAA and conferences from enforcing and creating rules to govern it. But what exactly does Trump's executive order mean? What will it change, if anything, about college sports' athlete compensation and transfer environment? The short answer, at least for now, is not very much. The longer answer is … well … there are still questions. What are the most important items in the order? Trump's executive order has been a long time coming. In fact, just last week Yahoo Sports obtained a copy of a draft of the order, which isn't wholly different to the one he signed and released on Thursday. Above anything else, the order's preamble describes the college athletics landscape as having been subject to unfair court rulings that 'created an out-of-control, rudderless system' which is 'under unprecedented threat.' 'Waves of recent litigation against collegiate athletics governing rules have eliminated limits on athlete compensation, pay-for-play recruiting inducements, and transfers between universities, unleashing a sea change that threatens the viability of college sports,' Trump writes in the order. He goes on to write critically that some schools are paying their athletes as much as $50 million this year from a combination of House settlement-related revenue share and third-party NIL. 'A national solution is urgently needed to prevent this situation from deteriorating beyond repair and to protect non-revenue sports, including many women's sports,' he writes. How he plans to do this is to direct various members of his cabinet — the attorney general, secretary of labor, secretary of education, etc. — to create policy around several concepts that the NCAA and conferences have been requesting help on from Congress for years. Among those: Protecting scholarships for non-revenue sports: The executive order, most notably, requires schools to maintain or even increase the number of scholarships they provide to non-revenue sports. This is geared to protect Olympic and women's sports that are at risk of elimination as schools direct more funding away from those and to the sports that generate the revenue like football and men's basketball. Those with $125 million or budgets (most of the power league schools) must provide more scholarship opportunities than they did last year, for instance. Those with budgets of $50 million must provide at least the same, as seen in a screen shot of the section here. Prohibit third-party, 'pay-for-play': You might call this the prohibition of booster collective pay to athletes, which, in a way, codifies the House settlement terms that prohibit collective pay to athletes if they are not deemed to be for legitimate endorsement or commercial opportunities. This issue is at the heart of negotiations among attorneys that is expected to result in a resolution soon that permits collectives to operate in a more open capacity than first thought. The executive order reinforces that provision in the House settlement. How does Trump plan to enforce these parameters? Well, that remains a bit murky, but he suggests in the order that members of his cabinet, as well as the Federal Trade Commission, have 30 days to create a plan on the enforcement of such, including potentially withholding federal funding for violators, opening up Title IX investigations, etc. Athlete employment: Trump directs the Secretary of Labor and the National Labor Relations Board to 'clarify the status of college athletes' — an obvious gesture toward the ongoing debate over courts potentially deeming college athletes as employees. As stated in the order preamble, Trump is against college athletes becoming employees and is clearly, with this directive, ordering cabinet members and the NLRB — he appoints the board — to rule that college athletes are students. Ironically enough, while many college leaders fight against employment, some of them believe collective bargaining is the only solution for the industry. Limited liability protection: This is another issue the NCAA and conferences have spent millions of dollars and six years lobbying for. They want to be protected from legal challenges so they can enforce their rules over things such as transfers, roster limits, booster pay — many of which have been deemed illegal by courts. Trump clearly disagrees with these court rulings, as he notes in the preamble. The order directs the attorney general and the chairman of the Federal Trade Commission to create policies to protect the 'long-term availability of college athletic scholarship and opportunities' when such is 'unreasonably challenged under antitrust' law. The attorney general and the FTC have 60 days to create such a plan, the order says. What are the immediate impacts of the executive order? The answer here is potentially … nothing. Trump's cabinet members — many of whom are quite busy with other more pressing matters — will need to make policy around these subjects. The specifics of that policy will dictate exactly how pivotal, if at all, this order is. What is a certainty is that whatever policies are created are not law and will likely be subject to legal scrutiny. Congressional action and court rulings are law in this country — not executive orders, legal experts tell Yahoo Sports. Baker even suggested this during his talk Thursday morning. 'You can't fix this stuff from executive order,' he said. 'Our focus for now really needs to be trying to get stuff dealt with through the legislative process.' As it turns out, Wednesday was a historic day for college sports with regard to congressional legislation. An all-encompassing federal college sports bill made its way out of committee for the first time since the NCAA's lobbying efforts began nearly six years ago. The SCORE Act, bipartisan but pro-Republican and NCAA-friendly legislation that many Democrats are against, received the necessary votes to advance out of committees and is eligible for debate on the House floor when members return in September from their traditional summer break. In many ways, the Score Act grants the NCAA and conferences similar protections as Trump's order. Above anything, Trump's executive order may get Congress to more urgently and swiftly push the bill across the goal line. However, if it does advance out of the House, the SCORE Act faces stiff pushback in a divided U.S. Senate, where at least seven Democrats are needed to overcome the filibuster and reach the 60-vote margin for any bill passage. The Senate, though, has been working toward the introduction of its own legislation, led by Sen. Ted Cruz, who, much like Trump, has made college sports regulation a priority. He's been in negotiations now for months with several Democrats, most notably Chris Coons, Richard Blumenthal and Cory Booker. No agreement has been reached despite more than a year of intense talks. Will Trump's executive order change that? It's one of many questions on the topic that remains a mystery.
