President Donald Trump is implementing measures to restrict non-citizens’ access to financial systems in the United States as part of his administration’s broader immigration enforcement.

On Tuesday, Trump signed an executive order titled “Restoring Integrity to America’s Financial System” that would require institutions to consider a customer’s immigration status when assessing potential financial risks.

In accordance with the 1970 Bank Secrecy Act, the new order mandates that the Treasury Secretary and federal financial regulators provide banks with guidance on identifying customers whose profiles or transactions may indicate risks such as money laundering, terrorism financing, and labor trafficking.

The order stated that the purpose of these modifications is to “take into account the potential threats to the integrity of the United States financial system posed by foreign consular identification cards.”

The order describes “red flags and typologies” associated with suspicious activity.

Among these are repetitive cash withdrawals, the use of shell companies to conceal true account ownership, and the use of certain platforms for “off-the-books” wage payments.

The “red flags” also encompass the use of an individual taxpayer identification number (ITIN) in place of a Social Security number when opening an account or performing specific banking transactions. This number is accessible to all, irrespective of their immigration status, and is used to file and pay taxes.

Even for legitimate reasons, the move could exacerbate the challenges faced by non-citizens, particularly undocumented immigrants, in obtaining financial services.

The U.S. government has implemented a stringent policy regarding immigration, regardless of whether it is legal or illegal, has restricted the access of immigrants to public services, increased scrutiny for visa and citizenship applications, and detained and deported individuals in mass, including those with lawful immigration status.

Protests across the nation have been incited by extensive immigration operations, which have resulted in the deaths of numerous Americans at the hands of federal agents.

In November, the Treasury Department also disclosed its intention to reclassify specific refundable tax credits as “federal public benefits,” which would limit the eligibility of certain non-citizens who submit taxes in the United States.

“President Trump is taking action to restore integrity to America’s financial system, cracking down on illicit activity that threatens national security and ending the extension of credit to high-risk borrowers that American citizens are forced to subsidize,” a White House fact sheet for the order said.

“Restoring sound underwriting standards puts money back in the pockets of law-abiding Americans,” the order added.

The fact sheet claimed that “gaps in customer identification practices have allowed terrorists, drug traffickers, money launderers, and other criminal networks to exploit U.S. financial institutions to move illicit funds and evade law enforcement,” citing documented Chinese-linked money laundering networks.

The White House also pointed to cases of banks extending mortgages, credit cards, and loans to undocumented immigrants and employers underreporting wages for undocumented employees, arguing that associated “costs are passed on to American consumers in the form of higher fees and interest rates.”

Economists generally attribute higher rates to benchmark rates, which are used to balance inflation and job growth, bank funding costs, and individual factors like borrowers’ credit scores.

According to a study by the left-leaning Urban Institute, lenders issued around 5,000 to 6,000 mortgages to customers with ITINs.

Banks are generally reluctant to lend to customers with ITINs, and Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are typically disinclined to insure mortgages for borrowers with an ITIN.

The order also directs the Treasury to consider regulatory changes under the Bank Secrecy Act that would enable financial institutions to more readily collect customer data, including immigration status and employment authorization.

Trump has repeatedly accused banks of discriminating against conservatives and has filed a $5 billion lawsuit against JPMorgan Chase and its CEO over the closure of his accounts following the Jan. 6, 2021, Capitol riot.

JPMorgan Chase said in January, “Our company does not close accounts for political or religious reasons. We do close accounts because they create legal or regulatory risk for the company. We regret having to do so, but often rules and regulatory expectations lead us to do so.”

At the same time, the White House has overseen a broader deregulatory push that has benefited firms outside the traditional banking framework, and openly embraced cryptocurrency, with Trump pledging to make the U.S. the “crypto capital of the planet.”

CBS Host LOSES IT After Sen. Kennedy FACT CHECKS Her Trump LIES… THIS GOT BAD!...

CBS Host PRESSES John Kennedy on Trump’s Spending — His Answer Takes an Unexpected Turn

The interview began with some of the biggest questions facing Washington: the conflict with Iran, rising fuel costs, and the approaching midterm elections. But when Republican Senator John Kennedy appeared on Face the Nation with CBS host Margaret Brennan, the conversation quickly moved toward an issue that could shape the political debate for months to come: how the government spends taxpayers’ money.

Kennedy did not pretend that the economic pressure facing American families was insignificant. He argued that voters were far more concerned about the cost of living than the daily battles playing out on television. With oil prices affected by disruptions around the Strait of Hormuz, he said, the consequences of foreign policy were reaching directly into household budgets.

Kennedy Brings the Conversation Back to Affordability

Kennedy’s message to the White House was unusually direct. He predicted that the midterm elections would be close and argued that Republicans needed to keep their attention on the financial concerns of ordinary Americans.

“When moms and dads lie down to sleep at night and can't,” Kennedy told Brennan, they are worried about the cost of living.

He also called for a nationwide address explaining why the United States entered the conflict with Iran, what the administration hoped to achieve, and how it intended to bring the situation to a conclusion.

His position was not a blanket rejection of the administration’s strategy. Kennedy defended continued pressure on Iran while acknowledging the economic consequences of the partially closed strait. He opposed sending American troops into the situation, warning that deploying them could create a new set of problems.

That combination—support for pressure abroad alongside concern about prices at home—set the tone for the rest of the interview.

image

Nearly $1 Billion in Cuts Sparks a Constitutional Dispute

The conversation became more pointed when Brennan asked about the White House’s decision to cancel nearly $1 billion in previously approved federal funding without congressional consent.

Brennan raised concerns expressed by Senator Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, who argued that the move threatened Congress’s constitutional authority over federal spending.

Kennedy disagreed.

“I love Susan like a taco, but she's wrong,” he said before explaining his view that Congress often appropriates money in broad categories, leaving agencies with considerable discretion over how funds are ultimately used.

He then deployed the phrase that would become the interview’s most memorable sound bite: “Spending porn.”

Kennedy used the expression to criticize what he considers wasteful government expenditures, pointing to funding for circumcision programs in Zambia and electric buses in Rwanda. He also argued that Congress should take greater responsibility for identifying and eliminating spending it believes is unnecessary.

But the disagreement was about more than whether particular programs were worthwhile. It raised a larger question: when Congress approves funding, how much authority should the executive branch have to cancel or redirect it?

Kennedy defended the cuts, while Brennan’s question highlighted the legal and constitutional objections. The interview did not resolve that dispute, but it brought the competing arguments into sharp focus.

image

Then Kennedy Turned the Standard on Trump

The most revealing moment came when Brennan shifted from the proposed cuts to taxpayer-funded advertising.

She asked Kennedy about a government-funded commercial prominently featuring President Donald Trump and praising his leadership. The question echoed earlier controversy surrounding former Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, whose department had spent $220 million on a border-security advertising campaign in which she appeared prominently.

Kennedy had previously criticized Noem’s campaign. Now, with Trump featured in another advertisement paid for by the federal government, Brennan asked whether that spending was appropriate.

Kennedy’s response was notable because he explicitly included his own political allies—and himself—in the principle he was defending.

“I don't think any public official, including President Trump or Kristi Noem or John Kennedy, should spend public money on private ads for themselves,” he said.

He acknowledged that the White House viewed the issue differently but argued that public funds should not be used to promote individual politicians. He also suggested that politicians should not have buildings named after them while they are still alive.

That answer complicated any attempt to portray his position as simply a defense of the administration. Kennedy supported the proposed spending cuts, but he also applied his criticism of taxpayer-funded self-promotion to Trump.

The Real Takeaway From the Interview

The exchange was not a shouting match, nor does the published transcript establish that Brennan lost her composure or that Kennedy fact-checked a series of false statements from her. What it does show is a pointed discussion about economic priorities, congressional spending authority, and whether public money should be used to enhance a politician’s image.

Kennedy’s argument was straightforward: families are worried about affordability, government spending deserves scrutiny, and the rules should apply regardless of party.

Whether viewers agree with his assessment of the proposed cuts is a separate question. The legal dispute over executive spending authority and the debate over taxpayer-funded political advertising deserve examination beyond a few memorable television lines.

The moment worth watching is when Brennan moves from criticizing government spending in general to asking Kennedy about an advertisement featuring Trump himself. That is where the discussion becomes more complicated—and where Kennedy’s stated principle is tested against his own party’s leadership.

Watch the full interview through the link below to hear the exchange in context and decide how convincing each side’s argument really was.