The news: In recent regulatory filings, JPMorgan and Bank of America (BofA) said they’re responding to government requests related to policies and processes around “providing, maintaining, or discontinuing financial products or services to certain clients or potential clients.”

More on this: “Debanking” in this context is the practice of restricting access to or “adversely [modifying the conditions of … financial services of any customer or potential customer] based on political or religious beliefs or legal business practices.” But the term usually points to uncontroversial activities: Financial institutions (FIs) routinely debank customers because of concerns over fraud, which could adversely affect consumers who struggle to access banking services in the first place.

Debanking, which has been a simmering political issue, has come to a boil. Early this year, President Trump suggested that BofA debanked conservatives and claimed JPMorgan Chase and BofA discriminated against him by rejecting his company’s deposits. In August, he signed an executive order targeting alleged debanking of religious and conservative groups.

Our take: The fire politicians are stoking introduces reputational and business risks for banks among customers as well as the risk of regulatory action by agencies that have traditionally demanded rigorous screening of current and prospective customers.

Debanking under any presidential administration is a political fight that banks would rather not be drawn into, and the largest institutions are targets. Legitimate debanking is for customers or potential customers who flunk a know your customer check. And it is crucial for meeting a bank’s statutory obligations and managing its risk. FIs need to tread carefully.