Although since Trump took over the White House office states like California, Texas and Florida are seeing massive drops in illegal immigrants, efforts to carry out sweeping immigration raids have stumbled in recent months. President Donald Trump’s administration is now weighing a very different tactic, one that would shift part of the immigration fight away from the southern border and into the nation’s financial system.
According to a report by The Wall Street Journal, administration officials are discussing a potential executive order that would require banks to collect citizenship information from both new and existing customers. If signed, the directive would expand the list of documents financial institutions must request, potentially including passports and other proof of nationality. The expectation, sources say, is full compliance from banks across the country.
The idea has sent ripples of concern through the financial industry. Executives at major banks, familiar with internal discussions, have expressed alarm at the scale of what such an order would entail. For decades, banks have operated under “know your customer” rules designed to combat money laundering and financial crime. Those regulations already require institutions to verify identities and maintain detailed records that can assist law enforcement and the IRS in tracking illicit activity or tax evasion.
What banks have not typically done, however, is record a customer’s citizenship status. There is no federal law barring noncitizens from opening bank accounts in the United States. Expanding compliance requirements to include nationality would mark a significant shift in how financial institutions interact with customers, and how closely those records might align with federal immigration enforcement efforts.
A White House official said discussions remain ongoing and emphasized that no final decision has been made. The administration has cautioned against treating any proposal as settled policy until the president formally announces it.
White House spokesman Kush Desai was blunt, dismissing reports of internal planning as “baseless” absent official confirmation. Still, the fact that conversations are taking place underscores how the administration is exploring new avenues to advance its deportation agenda.
Sen. Tom Cotton, R-Ark., posted on X supporting the president idea.
“I strongly support President Trump taking action to prevent illegal migrants from accessing our banking system,” Cotton wrote in an X post Tuesday.
I strongly support President Trump taking action to prevent illegal migrants from accessing our banking system.
I sent a letter to @SecScottBessent asking for an investigation into this matter, and will be introducing legislation on this issue shortly. https://t.co/Y92fdjpon9
— Tom Cotton (@SenTomCotton) February 24, 2026
During his campaign and after returning to office, Trump pledged to carry out what he described as the largest deportation effort in U.S. history. He argued that removing undocumented immigrants would open jobs for American workers and contribute to safer communities.
Yet large-scale enforcement actions have not unfolded as smoothly as promised. In some instances, aggressive operations have led to tragic outcomes, including the deaths of American citizens during enforcement actions. At the same time, many Americans say their day-to-day financial pressures, including high living costs, have not noticeably eased.
The banking industry’s unease is notable given that many executives initially welcomed Trump’s return to power. At the World Economic Forum, Trump joked that corporate leaders often prospered during his presidency. But a policy requiring banks to gather and potentially share citizenship data could place them in a difficult position, balancing regulatory compliance with customer trust and operational efficiency.
If implemented, the order could slow the process of opening accounts and add layers of paperwork for millions of customers. Banks would likely need to upgrade systems, retrain staff, and integrate additional verification checks. Mistakes in documentation or data matching could expose institutions to legal challenges. An incorrect record might trigger enforcement scrutiny directed at the wrong person or address, creating liability risks that financial firms would be forced to manage.
Critics also warn that such a measure could increase the likelihood of discrimination, particularly in regions with large immigrant communities. Even if unintended, stricter documentation checks may disproportionately affect people who lack easy access to passports or formal proof of citizenship.
For now, the proposal remains under consideration. But the mere prospect of linking everyday banking to immigration enforcement signals how far the debate has shifted, from border walls and detention centers to teller windows and account applications. Whether the administration ultimately follows through may depend not only on political will, but on how much strain the financial system is prepared to absorb.
