Trump Eyes Citizenship Checks at Banks

A new Trump-era proposal could turn your local bank into a frontline checkpoint in the fight over illegal immigration—and it’s not final yet.

At a Glance

The Treasury Department is reportedly discussing an executive order that would require banks to collect and verify customers’ citizenship information.
Current “Know Your Customer” rules focus on identity for anti–money laundering compliance, not citizenship status.
The Wall Street Journal reported the talks; Reuters said it had not independently verified the report and the White House dismissed unannounced policy reporting as “baseless speculation.”
Banks could face major compliance costs, while noncitizens could see higher barriers to opening—or keeping—accounts.

What the proposal would change inside U.S. banking

Treasury officials are considering a shift that would go beyond today’s standard account-opening checks: collecting and verifying a customer’s citizenship information.

Under current federal law, noncitizens are not barred from opening bank accounts, and existing “Know Your Customer” requirements generally emphasize verifying identity to prevent money laundering and other financial crime. The reported idea would add a new layer—citizenship status—potentially affecting new customers and possibly existing account holders.

Exclusive: The Trump administration is considering an order that forces banks to collect citizenship information from customers https://t.co/Tu8oIHbqrk

— The Wall Street Journal (@WSJ) February 24, 2026

The timeline matters because the proposal is still described as an internal discussion, not a settled policy. The Wall Street Journal first reported the talks on February 24, 2026, citing people familiar with the matter.

Publicly, the White House has not announced a decision. A spokesman, Kush Desai, said reporting on potential policymaking that has not been officially announced by the White House is “baseless speculation,” underscoring the uncertainty around whether an order will be issued and what it would require.

Why immigration enforcement is showing up at the bank counter

The reported bank-focused plan fits into a broader enforcement posture across multiple sectors.

The same research trail points to other immigration-related actions and proposed shifts since Trump returned to office: plans to arrest and re-interview certain refugees who have lived in the U.S. at least a year without green cards, a hold on pending green card applications for refugees admitted during a defined period, proposed restrictions tied to birthright citizenship, and increased denaturalization referrals from USCIS field offices for legal review.

Those moves provide context for why financial services are now being discussed as another leverage point.

From a conservative perspective, this is the crux of the policy debate: whether enforcing immigration law can be strengthened without turning private institutions into broad government screening tools that sweep up lawful residents and citizens in red tape.

The available reporting describes the plan as an immigration enforcement strategy, with banks positioned as the collectors and verifiers of a sensitive status category. Limited details are available so far on definitions, exemptions, or what verification documents would be deemed acceptable.

Operational burdens and compliance costs banks are warning about

The banking industry has reportedly raised concerns about implementation burden and compliance costs. That tracks with how banks respond to new federal verification mandates: systems upgrades, staff training, document-handling protocols, and new audit exposure if errors occur.

If the requirement extends beyond new accounts to existing customers, the logistical challenge expands rapidly, because banks would need a process for outreach, document collection, re-verification, and resolving mismatches without triggering unlawful discrimination or wrongful account disruptions.

Supporters of tougher immigration enforcement may see a practical upside if the policy is tightly written and narrowly implemented: it could make it harder for undocumented immigrants to fully integrate into the financial system.

Critics, including some in the industry, are likely to argue it would increase “unbanked” populations and push more transactions into cash or informal channels, which can complicate crime detection. The research provided does not include detailed expert analysis or modeling on these second-order effects.

What’s confirmed, what’s disputed, and what to watch next

The fact pattern is straightforward but incomplete. Multiple outlets echoed the Wall Street Journal’s reporting, but Reuters noted it had not independently verified the report. The White House, meanwhile, has not issued an official announcement or timeline.

Until an executive order is published—or Treasury issues formal guidance—key questions remain unanswered: whether the rule would apply to every account type, whether it would cover existing accounts, what documentation would qualify, and what happens when a customer cannot readily produce proof.

For Americans frustrated by years of lax border enforcement, inflationary overspending, and bureaucratic gamesmanship, the larger lesson is to separate confirmed policy from trial balloons.

If a mandate does move forward, it will likely trigger a clash between immigration enforcement priorities and concerns about government overreach into everyday commerce. The next concrete signal to watch is not commentary—it’s the publication of an actual executive order and the implementing rules banks would be required to follow.