The new order expands the use of the Bank Secrecy Act by directing financial institutions to treat certain activities, including the use of ITINs, foreign consular identification cards, and cash-intensive transactions, as potential warning signs. Critics argue that this approach could cause banks to view many non-citizens as suspicious, even if they legally pay taxes or operate legitimate businesses.

As a result, some individuals could face difficulties accessing financial services, including frozen bank accounts, denied credit applications, or challenges obtaining mortgages. Opponents believe the policy risks creating barriers for law-abiding immigrants who depend on the banking system for everyday financial needs.

Supporters, however, argue that the measures are intended to strengthen efforts against terrorism, human trafficking, and money laundering. They see the policy as an important tool for improving national security and protecting the financial system from criminal activity.

Critics warn that the broader impact may be to push vulnerable workers away from traditional banking and further into a cash-based economy, where they are more exposed to exploitation. The article argues that the policy could **“choke legitimate access to banking, pushing vulnerable workers deeper into the cash economy where exploitation thrives.”**

Combined with stricter immigration enforcement measures, the policy is viewed by critics as more than a financial regulation. They contend it **“quietly redraws the boundary of who is allowed to belong in America’s financial life at all,”** raising concerns about the balance between security and equal access to financial services.