Opinion > Opinions - Immigration The views expressed by contributors are their own and not the view of The Hill Don’t turn banks into citizenship police by Solveig Singleton, opinion contributor - 03/07/26 9:00 AM ET by Solveig Singleton, opinion contributor - 03/07/26 9:00 AM ET Share ✕ LinkedIn LinkedIn Email Email FILE – A U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent is seen in Park Ridge, Ill., Sept. 19, 2025. (AP Photo/Erin Hooley, File) President Trump is reportedly considering an order requiring financial institutions to check customers’ citizenship, a curious departure from the administration’s professed concerns about the burden of bureaucracy and debanking . The goal appears to be to enlist banks in Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s efforts to remove people living in the U.S. illegally. Yet this policy will only elevate suspicion above free speech, privacy, fairness, and integrity . To start with the obvious: There is no citizenship requirement to open a bank account in the U.S. A citizenship verification rule would taint Americans’ vital relationships with banks and credit unions with mutual mistrust. Consider the potential effects on customers. Given today’s headlines about ICE, requiring banks to verify their customers’ citizenship would significantly erode trust in financial services. If customers come to believe that information-sharing between their financial institutions and the government — in the manner it is currently shared between the Transportation Security Administration and ICE — could lead to their arrest and detention , they might think twice before offering their information to the bank.  Concern over this prospect would not be limited to criminals. The Department of Justice is seeking the authority to renew detention of people attending green card interviews. ICE may sweep up refugees in the process of clarifying their status . It has detained legal residents , including citizens and visa holders . A verification rule would create mistrust among people born abroad or those with non-European names, even if they are legal residents of the U.S. Customers unnerved by the order might move their money from chartered depository institutions to informal family, religious, and community-based financial networks. Some of these informal networks are already under investigation because they can be used for criminal activities. Banks and law enforcement addressing concrete harms like human trafficking or fraud will find their investigations hampered by a confusing influx of mostly ordinary people pursuing ordinary purposes. And unbanked individuals would be more likely to suffer financial hardship, the consequences of which would be felt in local communities. Even if nervous customers decide to stick with their financial institutions, they may mistake their bank’s unexpected requests for documentation with phishing scams. Actual scammers will do their utmost to exploit the opportunity to deluge customers with fake demands. How would baffled seniors be expected to understand that they cannot pay their electric bill from an account they opened decades ago because they have failed to produce documents on time? Must a legal resident applying for citizenship update their financial service providers at every stage of the process? The proposal also raises the ominous question of what would happen to funds in unverified accounts. Enforcement authorities might be tempted to seize these funds, encouraging corruption and more failures of due process. These problems set the stage for serious constitutional challenges. Historically, flawed constitutional theories have allowed the government surveil Americans’ financial records. The Bank Secrecy Act requires financial services to share customer information with law enforcement, a rule originally intended to fight terrorism and organized crime. The Supreme Court has ruled that Fourth Amendment rights of privacy do not apply to bank records, as customers have no expectation of privacy in information they share with a third party, such as a bank. This controversial “ third-party doctrine ” allows the government to surveil far too easily the financial affairs of ordinary people it has no reason to suspect of any crime. Yet the Supreme Court seems increasingly willing to reconsider that doctrine. This is encouraging. As the court once put it , the Fourth Amendment’s main aim is “to place obstacles in the way of a too permeating police surveillance.” The justices may finally recognize that allowing enforcement authorities to bypass privacy and due process rights by requiring financial service companies to relay records to them violates fundamental privacy rights. Past experience with such proposals may offer the Trump administration some guidance. In 1981, President Ronald Reagan’s Cabinet discussed whether a national ID would help stop ill