By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has indicated that banks will likely be required to collect citizenship data on customers, stating that “if Treasury and the banking regulators say it’s their job, it’s their job.” This move, part of a broader immigration policy initiative, aims to address concerns about non-citizens opening bank accounts, with Bessent questioning how banks can truly “know your customer” without this information. While current “know your customer” rules focus on identity verification for anti-money laundering purposes, this proposed executive order seeks stricter mandates, aligning with practices in many other countries. Despite potential economic and administrative concerns raised by banks and policy experts regarding the exclusion of non-citizens and increased costs, Bessent maintains that “illegal immigrants don’t have a right to be in the banking system.”
Read the original article here
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has indicated that banks are being prepared to collect citizenship data from their customers. This directive suggests a significant shift in how financial institutions will operate, moving towards a more stringent verification process for account holders. The underlying rationale appears to be an attempt to solidify proof of citizenship for all individuals engaging with the American banking system.
Existing bank customers, including those who have maintained relationships with their banks for many years, would be subject to this new requirement. This means that individuals who have been banking in the same place for decades could be compelled to re-prove their citizenship status to retain access to their accounts. The scope of this potential change is broad, affecting a wide swathe of the American population.
The implications of such a policy are particularly concerning for women. A significant number of American women, estimated to be around 69 million, possess birth certificates that may no longer match their current legal names due to marriage. This discrepancy arises because REAL ID is explicitly excluded as acceptable proof of citizenship, leaving passports and birth certificates as the primary options.
To bridge the gap created by name changes after marriage, these women would need to present additional documentation such as marriage certificates, divorce decrees, or court orders. This requirement places an unequal burden on women, as male customers would not typically face the same documentation chain due to marriage-related name changes. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has reportedly confirmed that this executive order is actively “in process” as of April 13, 2026.
This move by the Treasury Department comes at a time when similar documentation barriers are being erected in other areas, such as voting rights. The SAVE Act, for instance, presents the same hurdles for women seeking to exercise their right to vote, impacting the same estimated 69 million women. This suggests a targeted approach that could hinder women’s access to both financial services and the ballot box.
Losing access to a bank account would have far-reaching consequences, disrupting essential aspects of daily life. This includes the inability to receive direct deposits, make mortgage or rent payments, build credit history, or receive electronic Social Security and disability benefits. Furthermore, it would significantly hamper the ability to run a business, effectively severing individuals from crucial financial infrastructure.
The right to independent banking for women was a hard-won achievement, secured just 52 years ago. The prospect of this right being quietly eroded by an executive order raises serious concerns about the regression of financial autonomy and equality. The ease with which this change could be implemented through an executive order, without necessarily going through traditional legislative processes, adds to the apprehension.
The question of how banks would be obligated to comply with executive orders arises, as they are not typically considered laws that directly dictate the operational procedures of private entities like banks. While banks must adhere to regulations established through established rulemaking processes, the direct application of an executive order to mandate such a drastic change in customer verification is a point of contention. Many believe that banks would resist such a mandate, as it could lead to significant operational challenges and potential legal battles.
The potential for a mass withdrawal of funds, or a bank run, is a tangible consequence that some suggest could arise if banks were to enforce such a policy. If a substantial portion of customers were to withdraw their money in protest or due to concerns about the new requirements, it could destabilize the banking system, especially if mechanisms like the FDIC are perceived to be weakened. This sentiment highlights the deep trust placed in the banking system and the potential for its disruption by government mandates.
The argument is made that citizenship is not currently a mandatory requirement for opening a bank account. Banks already engage in Know Your Customer (KYC) procedures and request Social Security numbers, which are often used as a proxy for identity verification. The addition of citizenship as a mandatory verification point, requiring specific documents like birth certificates or passports, represents a significant escalation.
The exclusion of REAL ID as a valid form of identification for this purpose is particularly perplexing, given that obtaining a REAL ID itself requires proof of citizenship. This perceived inconsistency in the proposed policy fuels skepticism about its practical implementation and underlying logic. The idea that an executive order alone could compel banks to undertake such extensive data collection and verification processes is also questioned, with many suggesting that it would require a formal regulatory rule-making process.
The potential for this policy to push more individuals towards unregulated financial alternatives, such as cryptocurrencies, is also a significant concern. While proponents might see this as a way to encourage innovation, critics argue that it could lead to increased volatility and risk for individuals, as well as create an environment conducive to illicit financial activities. The underlying motivation, some suggest, could be to funnel individuals into less regulated markets, which might benefit certain wealthy individuals and entities.
Furthermore, the argument is made that the government’s increasing interest in collecting data from third parties, such as banks, raises broader privacy concerns. The idea that data collected by these institutions could be considered “fair game” for government access without a warrant is a worrying precedent. This underscores a growing trend towards increased surveillance and data aggregation by the state, potentially at the expense of individual privacy.
The notion that banks would be compelled to act as an extension of immigration enforcement or border patrol by verifying citizenship status is viewed by many as an overreach of governmental authority. The potential for discrimination based on race, sex, religion, or creed is also a significant concern, as such policies can disproportionately affect marginalized communities.
The comparison to historical struggles for financial autonomy, particularly for women, highlights the potential regression that such a policy could represent. The hard-won right to independent banking could be jeopardized, forcing individuals to navigate a complex and potentially exclusionary system. The message conveyed is that by criticizing or opposing the current administration, individuals risk losing access to their financial resources, creating a chilling effect on dissent.
The question of how foreign investors and visa holders would be accommodated under such a policy remains unclear. The exclusion of foreign nationals from the US banking system could have significant economic repercussions. The practicality of verifying existing account holders, particularly the sheer volume of paperwork and the potential for prolonged disruption of access to funds, also presents a logistical nightmare.
Ultimately, the proposed directive from Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent to prepare banks for collecting citizenship data signals a potentially transformative and controversial shift in financial regulation. The discussions surrounding this initiative touch upon fundamental issues of privacy, equality, financial access, and the very nature of government authority over private institutions. The effectiveness and legality of such a measure, as well as its broader societal impact, are likely to be subjects of intense debate and legal challenge.