Category: Banking

For more than half a century following the passage of the Bank Secrecy Act of 1970, financial institutions have been required to monitor certain customer transactions to thwart money laundering. The USA PATRIOT Act, passed in response to the 9/11 attacks, created additional rules designed to thwart terrorist financing.

Now the Trump Administration is starting to enlist banks in a more questionable form of information gathering involving the immigration status of their customers. For months, there have been reports that the administration is planning to require banks to determine whether customers are U.S. citizens.

That has not yet happened, but a recent executive order from the White House takes a step in that direction by advising banks to “be attentive to the credit risks posed by the extension of mortgage and auto loans, credit cards, and other consumer credit to the inadmissible and removable alien population.”  The order calls on the Treasury Department and financial regulators such as the Fed and the FDIC to develop changes to the Bank Secrecy Act to address this supposed risk.

This sounds like a prelude to more explicit rules that would bar banks from doing business with undocumented immigrants.

It was surprising to see a reference in the executive order to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, an agency that the administration appeared to have demolished as part of the DOGE onslaught last year. The CFPB was urged to tell banks that they should consider immigration status in assessing a borrower’s ability to repay a loan.

Now the agency, headed by OMB Director Russell Vought, has sprung back to life with guidance that does exactly that. The Washington Post reports that the CFPB is also beginning to investigate smaller, non-profit lenders, which tend to operate in communities with higher percentages of immigrant residents.

All this is part of an expanding effort by the Trump Administration to make life more difficult for immigrants by restricting their access to financial services, among other things. By raising the misery level, Trump hopes that more of the undocumented will self-deport.

It is ironic that the administration is pushing more people out of the banking system at the same time it is dialing up its campaign against debanking, the baseless claim that financial institutions have been denying services based on ideological or religious considerations. It has just come to light that Jeanine Pirro, the U.S. Attorney in DC, has sent subpoenas to the likes of JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America to look for evidence of the purported practice.

This effort, which stems from Trump’s ongoing resentment at banks that dissociated themselves from him and his family businesses in the immediate wake of the January 6 insurrection, will probably go nowhere.

The administration’s own debanking efforts against immigrants are a more serious problem. These moves will increase the financial insecurity of families headed by non-citizens, pushing them out of more stable jobs into precarious employment.

This, in turn, will have consequences for the population at large. When people turn to off-the-books work, they stop contributing payroll taxes that support the Social Security and Medicare programs. Social Security’s trustees have just issued a new report that lists the shrinking of the immigrant population as one of the factors weakening the financial condition of the system.

At the same time, the weaponization of agencies such as the CFPB against immigrants will serve to undermine the legitimacy of financial regulation. The Bureau, which used to play a vital role in identifying and punishing predatory lending, has abandoned that mission and is now, in effect, being turned into an arm of the much-reviled ICE. The scammers could not be happier.

Federal bank regulators are normally concerned with getting financial institutions to reduce their risk level, but the Trump Administration has a different idea. The major agencies—the Federal Reserve, Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency—jointly announced they have revised key guidance documents to remove references to what is known as reputation risk.

This is the latest in a series of moves by the bank examiners to discourage banks from taking steps to limit potential harm to their business stemming from an association with controversial activities. More specifically, it is part of an effort pushed by Trump to ban what he and his supporters in Congress claim is a widespread practice of debanking.

The controversy stems in large part from reported steps taken by several major banks to dissociate themselves from Trump and his family businesses in the immediate wake of the January 6 insurrection. At that time, outrage about the siege of the Capitol was high, and the Trump name was toxic. It thus made sense that banks, along with other institutions, would want to sever their ties.

Trump is obsessed with rewriting the history of January 6, and part of that is to delegitimize actions such as those taken by the banks. It has now become part of MAGA doctrine that banks acted out of unjustified political discrimination.

This claim has been broadened beyond Trump to include supposed prejudice against other individuals and companies for ideological reasons. Based on this dubious premise, the bank regulators have been moving to obliterate the idea that financial institutions should be judged on potential risks to their reputation.

Reputation risk is far from a contrived issue. All of the major commercial and investment banks have severely compromised reputations. Some of this stems from their own misconduct, but numerous institutions have compounded the problem by doing business with disreputable parties.

For example, in 2014 JPMorgan Chase paid $1.7 billion to the Justice Department to settle criminal and civil charges stemming from its business dealings with fraudster Bernard Madoff. In 2020 the New York State Department of Financial Services fined Deutsche Bank $150 million for failing to properly monitor account activity conducted on behalf of sexual predator Jeffrey Epstein.

There are many more instances of banks being penalized in connection with suspicious activities by customers that were likely signs of money laundering. For instance, in 2024 TD Bank pleaded guilty to criminal charges of anti-money-laundering deficiencies and paid a penalty of $1.9 billion to the DOJ.

Major banks have also been penalized for doing business with parties that may be violating economic sanctions. In 2023 Wells Fargo paid $30 million to settle allegations by the Office of Foreign Assets Control that it provided a foreign bank located in Europe with software that the bank then used to process trade finance transactions with U.S.-sanctioned jurisdictions and persons.

In short, there are numerous ways in which financial institutions can damage their reputation by doing business with disreputable parties. At a time when banks should be more careful about the parties with whom they do business, the Trump regulatory agencies are pushing them in the opposite direction.

By removing reputation risk as one of the factors used in evaluating bank performance, the administration is making it more likely banks will abandon prudence in the pursuit of higher profits. As financial history shows, at some point this will not end well.

Over the past decade, Wells Fargo has been a poster child for corporate greed and misconduct. In 2016 the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau revealed that the bank had been ordering its employees to create unauthorized accounts for existing customers in order to generate illegitimate fees.

The CFPB fined Wells Fargo $100 million in what would be the first in a series of enforcement actions and lawsuits that have cost the bank more than $8 billion in penalties for the bogus accounts and other offenses such as improper foreclosures and overdraft fees. Along with those monetary punishments, in 2018 the Federal Reserve took the unusual step of putting a limit on the bank’s ability to increase its assets until it improved its governance and internal controls.

Now, in 2025, the CFPB has effectively been dismantled by the Trump Administration’s anti-regulatory steamroller, while the Fed just announced it is removing the asset limit. According to the bank regulator, “the removal of the growth restriction reflects the substantial progress the bank has made in addressing its deficiencies.”

There are two ways to view this decision. On the one hand, the Fed demonstrated that a penalty other than a fine can be quite effective. While Wells remained capped, its big competitors such as JPMorgan Chase and Bank of America experienced enormous asset growth. Being shut out of the expansion certainly made an impression on the new leadership installed at Wells as a result of the scandals.

On the other hand, the track record of Wells since 2018 has not been spotless. In 2022 the CFPB imposed a $1.7 billion fine on the bank and ordered it to pay $2 billion in consumer redress for a variety of illegitimate practices both before and after the Fed enforcement action. The practices included surprise overdraft fees and improper interest charges on auto and mortgage loans.

In 2021 the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency fined Wells $250 million for unsafe practices related to material deficiencies in its loss mitigation activities.

Wells has also been penalized for misconduct in its securities and trading operations. Since 2019 it has paid over $250 million in fines and settlements to the Securities and Exchange Commission as well as $89 million to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Regulators have punished Wells for its employment practices. The Occupational Safety and Heald Administration, which enforces the whistleblower protection provisions of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act, found that the bank had improperly fired a manager who complained about illegal practices and ordered that the manager be paid $22 million in damages. The U.S. Labor Department and state regulators in California and New York have cited Wells for wage and hour violations.

Along with government enforcement actions, Wells continues to face a steady stream of class action lawsuits. In recent years it has paid out large sums in settlements, including $185 million to resolve litigation alleging it improperly put mortgages of struggling customers into forbearance without informed consent during the Covid pandemic, damaging their credit rating.

Wells Fargo may no longer be defrauding customers through the creation of bogus accounts, but it appears unable to avoid numerous other types of misconduct. It thus does not deserve relief from the Fed’s restrictions.  

If any shackles are to be removed, they should be the ones unjustly being imposed on CFPB rather than those properly put on Wells Fargo.

A substantial number of working-class Americans have decided that the Biden Administration is not acting in their interest and is instead serving the elites. One area in which that notion most strongly conflicts with reality is the regulation of consumer financial services.

The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau is an agency that has consistently stood up to giant banks, payday lenders and mortgage servicers. In its latest move, the CFPB just issued a rule limiting the late fees large credit card companies can charge to $8 a month.

That’s compared to the current norm of around $32, which generates an estimated $14 billion annual profit for the issuers. The CFPB estimates the cap will deprive banks of more than two-thirds of this bonanza, which has grown despite federal legislation passed in 2009 designed to ban excessive charges.

It is thus no surprise that the credit card industry is up in arms. Trade associations are trotting out fatuous claims that the lower fees will actually harm consumers while preparing lawsuits to challenge the cap.

Banks are unlikely to win much public support in their counter-offensive. That is because they have a long history of mistreating cardholders every way possible.

The CFPB knows this only too well. Over the past dozen years, the agency has brought a series of cases challenging credit card abuses and imposing hefty penalties against the culprits. Here are some examples:

In 2015 the CFPB fined Citibank $35 million and ordered it to provide an estimated $700 million in relief to consumers harmed by allegedly illegal practices related to credit card add-on products and services. Roughly seven million consumer accounts were said to be affected by deceptive marketing, billing, and administration of debt protection and credit monitoring products. The agency also said a Citibank subsidiary deceptively charged expedited payment fees to nearly 1.8 million consumer accounts during collection calls.

Three years later, the CFPB concluded that Citibank was violating the Truth in Lending Act by failing to reevaluate and reduce the annual percentage rates (APRs) for approximately 1.75 million consumer credit card accounts consistent with regulatory requirements, and by failing to have reasonable written policies and procedures to conduct the APR reevaluations consistent with regulation. Citi was ordered to provide $335 million in restitution.

In 2012 the CFPB and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation ordered Discover Bank to refund approximately $200 million to more than 3.5 million consumers and pay a $14 million civil money penalty after an investigation found the bank misled consumers into paying for various credit card add-on products.

That same year, the CFPB ordered three American Express subsidiaries to refund an estimated $85 million to approximately 250,000 customers for illegal card practices. This was the result of a multi-part federal investigation which, according to the agency, “found that at every stage of the consumer experience, from marketing to enrollment to payment to debt collection, American Express violated consumer protection laws.” American Express was also required to pay a penalty of $14 million to the CFPB.

Last year, the CFPB ordered Bank of America to pay $90 million in penalties for a variety of abusive practices, such as withholding reward bonuses explicitly promised to credit card customers.

Some of these practices may have been changed, but the industry, with its exorbitant interest rates, is far from a paragon of corporate virtue. The cap on late fees, if it survives court challenges, will help to tip the scales back in favor of customers. The only question is whether they will pay attention to who brought this about.