Trump Administration Weighs Requiring Banks to Verify Customers' Citizenship
Overview and immediate posture
Senior officials are exploring a directive that would push banks to gather and confirm customers’ citizenship details, potentially via an executive order rather than routine rulemaking. Stakeholders in finance view this as an expansion of routine customer due diligence into immigration enforcement, not simply an operational tweak.
Operational and legal frictions
If enacted, the measure could require banks to request passports or comparable proof from both new and existing accountholders, creating large-scale retroactive collection demands and complex verification workflows. Executives warn such requirements may be technologically and administratively burdensome, straining onboarding systems and customer-service channels.
Regulatory precedent and institutional response
The idea follows prior administration efforts to press financial firms on perceived political bias and follows a broader push to link non-traditional federal datasets to immigration objectives, including earlier attempts to access tax records. Banks, trade groups and civil liberties advocates are poised to challenge the legal basis for mandating citizenship checks, citing privacy and statutory limits on agency authorities.
Broader implications for banking and governance
Beyond compliance costs, the proposal threatens to widen the rift between large banks and the administration around issues like debanking and customer selection policies, while also increasing reputational risk for firms caught between enforcement orders and consumer-protection duties. Litigation, congressional scrutiny and state-level pushback are likely next steps if any order is issued.
Operational timeline and uncertainty
Officials have not finalized language or chosen a formal mechanism, leaving timing and scope uncertain; that ambiguity itself is driving planning and legal contingency work at major lenders. The administration’s public posture denies confirmed plans, even as internal discussions continue.
Takeaway
This is a fast-moving regulatory flashpoint that combines immigration policy with financial regulation, and it will shape bank compliance roadmaps, customer relationships, and litigation posture over the next 6–12 months.
Read Our Expert Analysis
Create an account or login for free to unlock our expert analysis and key takeaways for this development.
By continuing, you agree to receive marketing communications and our weekly newsletter. You can opt-out at any time.
Recommended for you
Regional US Banks Partner with Cari Network to Tokenize Customer Deposits
A consortium of mid-sized U.S. banks has begun prototyping tokenized deposit balances on the Cari Network to retain digitally native customers and explore faster, programmable settlement while keeping deposit liabilities and regulatory oversight onshore. The pilots will focus on legal equivalence, embedded KYC/AML flows and ledger performance before any wider rollout or standard-setting.
Federal Reserve to shelve select confidential remediation orders for banks
The Federal Reserve has informed banks it will begin reassessing and withdrawing certain confidential remediation orders issued during previous supervisory reviews. The move, driven by a shift in oversight posture under Vice Chair Michelle Bowman, reduces immediate regulatory pressure on firms but raises questions about long-term risk oversight and transparency.
UK banking restrictions on crypto transfers are stalling the sector, UKCBC survey finds
A UK Cryptoasset Business Council survey of ten major exchanges finds widespread bank refusals and delays for transfers to regulated crypto platforms, estimating 40% of transfers are blocked or delayed. The report warns these practices hinder innovation, recommends clearer, risk‑based rules from regulators and banks, and highlights up to £1 billion in declined payments at a single exchange.
U.S. federal push to vet voter rolls with SAVE raises error and disenfranchisement risks
The federal government has expanded use of the SAVE immigration-verification system to screen state voter rolls and the Justice Department has pressed states for detailed, nonpublic registration data, prompting lawsuits and judicial skepticism. Election officials and voting-rights groups warn that SAVE’s outdated records, tight remediation windows and federal data demands risk false matches and the removal of eligible voters ahead of key contests.
First Citizens moves to push assets past $250B, eyes KeyCorp deal
First Citizens is evaluating acquisition options to push its assets beyond a $250 billion regulatory threshold, engaging advisers to build potential transaction lists. One of the targets under consideration is KeyCorp, as the bank seeks scale to better absorb rising compliance and regulatory costs.
Workers pressure Target and major employers to confront ICE field operations
Target and other large Minnesota employers are facing employee-led demands for clearer policies after immigration agents detained workers on or near store property, sparking letters, protests and at least one resignation. The incidents expose a legal and governance gap over agency access to semi-public private property, forcing firms to balance worker safety, reputational risk and uncertain liability when federal officers operate on commercial sites.
Bank of England Weighs Outsourcing Data Collection for Private‑Markets Stress Test
The Bank of England is exploring hiring an external specialist to compile information from private-market participants so a planned stress exercise can meet tight deadlines. The move reflects regulators’ growing concern about the linkages between lightly regulated asset managers and traditional deposit-taking banks, and it raises questions about data standards, confidentiality and market impacts.
DOJ’s Voter-Data Push Collides With State Resistance and Court Pushback
The Justice Department’s demand for detailed state voter files has escalated into legal battles and political clashes as multiple states refuse to hand over sensitive registration information. Courts and election officials warn the federal effort risks privacy violations, erroneous purges and an overreach of executive power.