menu_open
Columnists Actual . Favourites . Archive
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close
Aa Aa Aa
- A +

USAA Scorns Its Trump-Voting Members By Debanking The Lawyer Who Defended Him

19 31
25.04.2024

Mention the word “debanked,” and some might think you stuttered or misspoke. Explain what debanking is — financial institutions canceling a customer over his politics — and most will think you’re paranoid.

Yet from oil and gas service firms in Texas to companies selling firearms to the Freedom Convoy of Canadian truckers, debanking is a real and growing problem. Especially as corporate leadership skews left and attempts to move their business beyond simply making a profit.

Now John Eastman, one of the attorneys who worked with former President Donald Trump, has been debanked by both Bank of America and USAA.

That USAA debanking Eastman for his ties to the 2020 election contest comes as a surprise. USAA — now an insurance, financial services, and banking powerhouse headquartered in San Antonio, Texas — got its start in 1922 as a mutual self-insurance company for Army officers. Its clientele is mostly service members, veterans, and their families, with membership limited to those who can show a military tie. That means that, per a 2019 Pew Research poll, its customers are center-right, with 59 percent of veterans identifying as Republican versus only 39 percent of veterans who are Democrats. In other words, USAA’s customers voted overwhelmingly for Trump.

Unfortunately, as USAA grew larger, some customers complained of a decline in quality as USAA increasingly contracted out key services, such as adjustment claims. USAA also drifted from its military heritage.

Today, USAA is like that empty husk of a human worn like a skin suit by that giant extraterrestrial insect in “Men in Black.”

Of the 10 men and one woman listed on USAA’s executive council, none mentions military service on his or her LinkedIn profile. Given that about 10 percent of American men ages 35-64 are veterans, one would........

© The Federalist


Get it on Google Play