Executive Order: Banks Must Collect Citizenship Information!

"Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent said that a proposed executive order that would require banks to collect citizenship information is “in process” in an interview this week with Semafor."

"Semafor reported in February that REAL IDs would not be considered eligible documents under this new documentation requirement, as they do not prove citizenship."

"...the Wall Street Journal reported that banks could begin requiring customers’ passports under this new policy..."

Nice comment at the bottom of the link: "Ban all US access to offshore accounts first then"

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/5830266-trump-executive-order-banking-system-citizenship/

As I understand it, an executive order it just an instruction to government agencies and not a law. So banks would not have to follow it.

Originally Posted by Maurice Clark

As I understand it, an executive order it just an instruction to government agencies and not a law. So banks would not have to follow it.

If the EO changes the federal agencies that regulate banks, the banks have to comply.

Still, there are multiple reasons Trump has been creating so many EOs. One reason is to bypass Congress. Another is so he can claim he's keeping campaign promises and throw political red meat to his base. And of course, challenge existing legal precedents by forcing judicial review that can result in the reinterpretation of executive authority. As I've said before, Republicans in Texas are masters at passing questionable legislation to achieve all these ends, and even if the law is eventually struck down, usually years later, it has a chilling effect that may never be reversed, or at least take many, many years to reverse.

Originally Posted by James Lacey

If the EO changes the federal agencies that regulate banks, the banks have to comply.

Still, there are multiple reasons Trump has been creating so many EOs. One reason is to bypass Congress. Another is so he can claim he's keeping campaign promises and throw political red meat to his base. And of course, challenge existing legal precedents by forcing judicial review that can result in the reinterpretation of executive authority. As I've said before, Republicans in Texas are masters at passing questionable legislation to achieve all these ends, and even if the law is eventually struck down, usually years later, it has a chilling effect that may never be reversed, or at least take many, many years to reverse.

This is a reasonable post, James, and I don’t disagree.  But please remember that Trump did not invent this. Presidents have been abusing EO‘s for too long. I think a very legit debate could be had whether Trump or Biden was/is worse in this regard.   Unfortunately, I think the abuse of dubious EO‘s has accelerated in the last couple of decades.

Originally Posted by James Brown

This is a reasonable post, James, and I don’t disagree.  But please remember that Trump did not invent this. Presidents have been abusing EO‘s for too long. I think a very legit debate could be had whether Trump or Biden was/is worse in this regard.   Unfortunately, I think the abuse of dubious EO‘s has accelerated in the last couple of decades.

In January 2014, President Obama stated, "I've got a pen and I've got a phone"... Whether this sentiment signals bold, even heroic presidential action in the face of a recalcitrant Congress, or whether it signals a blatant disregard for the Constitution and gross executive overreach depends entirely upon one’s political point of view.

My point is they all do it, and the Supremes slap them down regularly (e.g.  tariffs, student loan forgiveness, no real difference.)

Originally Posted by James Brown

In January 2014, President Obama stated, "I've got a pen and I've got a phone"... Whether this sentiment signals bold, even heroic presidential action in the face of a recalcitrant Congress, or whether it signals a blatant disregard for the Constitution and gross executive overreach depends entirely upon one’s political point of view.

My point is they all do it, and the Supremes slap them down regularly (e.g.  tariffs, student loan forgiveness, no real difference.)

Hmm, quantity has a quality all of its own:     

"Single-term President Joe Biden signed 160 executive orders from 2021 to 2025, which is fewer than other recent presidents."

"President Trump has signed 252 executive orders so far in his second term: 225 in 2025, and 27 as of March 26, 2026."

I recall Rich Davis ranting about Biden being a tyrannical authoritarian expletive deleted so and so just about every time he signed an executive order along with the rightwing echo chambers. 

The one in question here seems particularly intrusive and a glaring example of governmental overreach, which it is and one of my points in posting it is that the GOP generally tries to project its image as the party that keeps big government out of your face...

Originally Posted by Rod Kaufman

Hmm, quantity has a quality all of its own:     

"Single-term President Joe Biden signed 160 executive orders from 2021 to 2025, which is fewer than other recent presidents."

"President Trump has signed 252 executive orders so far in his second term: 225 in 2025, and 27 as of March 26, 2026."

I recall Rich Davis ranting about Biden being a tyrannical authoritarian expletive deleted so and so just about every time he signed an executive order along with the rightwing echo chambers. 

The one in question here seems particularly intrusive and a glaring example of governmental overreach, which it is and one of my points in posting it is that the GOP generally tries to project its image as the party that keeps big government out of your face...

I totally agree that this one is bad. The R party has not been a party of limited government since I was in high school. Maybe if Mitt Romney had won?

Does Trump even pay lip service to being a small government guy? It is a joke if he does.  I really don’t pay much attention to what he says.

I recall DOGE of course, but that seemed to be simply a ham fisted attempt at (what is probably very necessary) federal staff downsizing.  More importantly to my mind, Trump has not done anything but expand the scope, intrusiveness, and power of the federal government, even if he fired a lot of people.