President Donald Trump’s administration is moving to tighten non-citizens’ access to parts of the U.S. financial system as part of a broader immigration enforcement agenda. Under measures tied to the 1970 Bank Secrecy Act, the administration has directed the Treasury Secretary and financial regulators to issue updated guidance for banks on identifying customer behaviors and transaction patterns associated with risks such as money laundering, terrorism financing, labor trafficking, and financial fraud.
According to the order, the changes are intended to address potential threats to the integrity of the American financial system, including concerns surrounding the use of foreign consular identification cards. Officials outlined several “red flags” for suspicious activity, including repeated cash withdrawals, shell companies used to hide account ownership, and payment methods designed to bypass traditional payroll systems.
The guidance also highlights the use of an Individual Taxpayer Identification Number, or ITIN, instead of a Social Security number during account openings or certain banking transactions. Because ITINs are available regardless of immigration status, critics argue the policy could create additional barriers for undocumented immigrants and other non-citizens seeking financial services.
The administration has paired these financial measures with broader immigration policies that increase scrutiny of visa applications, expand enforcement actions, and limit access to some public benefits. The Treasury Department has also considered changes that could classify certain refundable tax credits as federal public benefits, potentially restricting eligibility for some taxpayers.
Supporters say the policies strengthen financial oversight and national security. Critics argue the measures could deepen financial exclusion. Economists note that lending decisions and interest rates are generally influenced more by monetary policy, funding costs, and borrower risk profiles than immigration status alone. Banks have historically shown caution toward borrowers using ITINs, while housing finance institutions have often been reluctant to back such loans in many cases.
