Saving Privacy Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Ogles, Andrew [R-TN-5]
- Committees
- Budget Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Mar 14, 2025
Bottom line
The bill aims to drastically curtail government access to financial data and regulatory power over financial institutions and digital assets, prioritizing individual privacy and congressional oversight.
What it actually does
This bill, titled the "Saving Privacy Act," significantly reforms financial privacy laws by amending the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (RFPA) to require search warrants for government access to financial records and repealing numerous Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) provisions related to reporting and record-keeping. It also includes provisions to terminate the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT), prohibit a central bank digital currency (CBDC), establish congressional review for major agency rules (REINS Act), and prevent restrictions on the use of convertible virtual currencies.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue the bill is essential for restoring individual financial privacy by limiting government surveillance, reducing the burden of excessive financial reporting on institutions, and reasserting congressional authority over agency rulemaking. They contend that current laws like the BSA and CAT infringe on Fourth Amendment rights and stifle innovation, particularly in the digital asset space, while a CBDC could enable government control over personal finances.
Opponents contend
Opponents would likely argue that the bill severely weakens critical tools for combating financial crime, terrorism financing, and money laundering by dismantling key provisions of the Bank Secrecy Act and the Consolidated Audit Trail. They might contend that restricting government access to financial records without a warrant would hinder law enforcement investigations, and that the REINS Act would paralyze regulatory agencies, making it difficult to protect consumers and financial stability.
The bill is moderately long and covers diverse, complex topics, requiring significant time for a thorough review, especially given its omnibus nature and the substantial changes it proposes to existing law.
Sec. 101(a), Title I
RFPA Warrant Requirement
This provision amends the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978 (RFPA) to require that government authorities obtain a search warrant before accessing or obtaining copies of a customer's financial records from a financial institution. It strikes previous exceptions that allowed access through administrative subpoenas, summonses, or formal written requests, making a search warrant the primary legal instrument for such access.
Supporters argue
Proponents argue that this provision strengthens Fourth Amendment protections for financial data, ensuring that individuals' financial privacy is not easily compromised by government overreach. They contend it aligns financial records with other sensitive personal information requiring a warrant for access.
Critics contend
Opponents would argue that this provision severely hampers law enforcement and regulatory agencies' ability to investigate financial crimes, money laundering, and terrorism financing by imposing an overly strict warrant requirement, potentially delaying or preventing critical investigations.
Tradeoffs
This provision balances individual privacy rights against the government's need for efficient access to financial data for law enforcement and regulatory purposes. It prioritizes privacy by raising the legal bar for access.
Sec. 101(b), Title I
Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) Reforms
This section significantly amends Chapter 53 of Title 31, U.S. Code, which includes the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). It narrows the purpose of the subchapter to merely requiring financial institutions to retain transaction records, repealing numerous sections that mandate reporting of suspicious activities (SARs), currency transactions (CTRs), foreign financial accounts, and other data collection requirements. It also repeals sections related to special measures against money laundering and associated penalties.
Sec. 201, Title II
Expanded RFPA Protections and Fourth Amendment Link
This section further amends the Right to Financial Privacy Act by repealing numerous existing exceptions that allowed government access to financial records without a warrant, including those for supervisory agencies, the Internal Revenue Service, Secret Service, and national security investigations. Crucially, it adds a new subsection (s) explicitly stating that the Federal Government may not access financial records in a manner prohibited by the Fourth Amendment and declares Congress's intent to protect the expectation of privacy in financial records.
Sec. 301, Title III
Termination of Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT)
This provision mandates the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to terminate the Consolidated Audit Trail (CAT) within 30 days of enactment and to amend all related regulations and guidance within 120 days. It prohibits the SEC and any self-regulatory organization from administering CAT and forbids any federal agency from establishing similar centralized databases collecting personally identifiable information of U.S. citizens without specific statutory authority. It also requires CAT, LLC and FINRA CAT, LLC to reimburse all collected fees within one year.
Sec. 401, Title IV
Prohibition on Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC)
This section amends the Federal Reserve Act to explicitly prohibit any Federal Reserve bank, the Board of Governors, the Secretary of the Treasury, or any other agency from minting or issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC) directly to an individual, or through a custodial intermediary or digital currency intermediary. It also prohibits these entities from offering related products or services directly to individuals, maintaining individual accounts, or holding such digital currencies on their balance sheets.
Sec. 502, Title V
Congressional Review of Major Agency Rules (REINS Act)
This section replaces Chapter 8 of Title 5, U.S. Code, to establish a new process for congressional review of agency rulemaking, known as the REINS Act. It requires that all "major rules" (defined as having an annual economic effect of $100 million or more, or significant adverse impacts on the economy, or increasing mandatory vaccinations) must be approved by a joint resolution of Congress before they can take effect. Nonmajor rules are subject to a congressional disapproval process. It also includes a provision for annual review and potential sunset of existing rules.
Sec. 601, Title VI
New Criminal Penalties for RFPA Violations
This section inserts a new Section 1116A into the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, establishing criminal penalties for any agency, department, or financial institution that knowingly obtains or discloses financial records or information in violation of the Act. Penalties include fines up to $5,000, imprisonment up to 5 years, or both, with federal employees also facing dismissal upon conviction. An exception is provided for good-faith reliance on a government authority's certificate.
Sec. 701, Title VII
Repeal of 1099-K Reporting Threshold Modification
This section amends Section 6050W(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, reverting the reporting threshold for third-party payment network transactions (e.g., from platforms like PayPal, Venmo, Etsy) back to its previous level. A third-party settlement organization will only be required to report transactions for a participating payee if the aggregate amount exceeds $20,000 AND the aggregate number of transactions exceeds 200. This effectively repeals the lower $600 threshold that was introduced by the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021.
Sec. 802, Title VIII
Prohibition on Restricting Convertible Virtual Currency Use ('Keep Your Coins Act')
This section, known as the 'Keep Your Coins Act,' prohibits any Federal agency head from restricting a 'covered user's' ability to use convertible virtual currency for their own purposes, such as purchasing goods or services. It also prohibits restrictions on conducting transactions through a 'self-hosted wallet.' The provision defines 'convertible virtual currencies' as mediums of exchange with equivalent value to currency or acting as a substitute, and 'self-hosted wallet' as an interface where the owner retains independent control over their virtual currency.
This subsection adds a new provision to the Right to Financial Privacy Act of 1978, explicitly stating that the Federal Government may not access financial records or information in a manner prohibited by the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution. It also includes a 'sense of Congress' that the Act establishes a statutory right protecting the expectation of privacy in financial records.
Sec. 201(s), Title II
Why it matters:While the 'sense of Congress' is often declarative, the explicit statutory link to the Fourth Amendment could be a subtle but powerful legal maneuver to elevate the standing of financial privacy in future court challenges, potentially making it harder for government agencies to argue for exceptions based on existing precedents.
Case for: Proponents argue this provision clarifies and strengthens the constitutional basis for financial privacy, ensuring that courts interpret RFPA in line with the highest standards of individual liberty. It provides a clear statutory directive for protecting citizens from unwarranted government intrusion into their financial lives.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this provision is an overreach of legislative power into judicial interpretation, potentially creating ambiguity or conflict with established legal precedents regarding the Fourth Amendment and third-party records. It could be seen as an attempt to pre-empt judicial review rather than a neutral clarification.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it could influence judicial interpretations of financial privacy rights and government access powers, impacting future legal challenges and investigations.
This provision, embedded within the definition of a 'major rule' in the REINS Act, includes 'an increase in mandatory vaccinations' as a criterion for a rule to be classified as major. This means any agency rule that increases mandatory vaccinations would require congressional approval before taking effect.
Sec. 502, new 5 U.S.C. 804(2)(D), Title V
Why it matters:Including 'mandatory vaccinations' as a criterion for a major rule is a politically strategic move. It allows proponents to appeal to a specific segment of the electorate concerned about vaccine mandates, without making it a standalone, highly visible provision. Its placement ensures it is subject to the new congressional approval process for major rules.
Case for: Proponents argue that rules mandating vaccinations have significant societal and personal impacts, warranting direct congressional oversight and approval. They contend it ensures democratic accountability for policies affecting individual health choices.
Case against: Opponents might argue that this specific inclusion politicizes public health decisions and could hinder the ability of public health agencies to respond effectively to health crises. They contend that such specific policy riders do not belong in a general administrative procedure reform.
Estimated impact: Potentially significant, as it could subject future public health mandates to political gridlock in Congress, affecting national responses to epidemics or public health initiatives.
This section mandates an 'Annual Review' of existing rules. Beginning 180 days after enactment, and annually for four years, each agency must designate at least 20 percent of its 'eligible rules' (rules in effect as of enactment) for review. These rules are then subject to the same congressional approval process as new major rules. If Congress does not enact a joint resolution of approval for an eligible rule within 5 years of enactment, that rule shall cease to be in effect.
Sec. 502, new 5 U.S.C. 808, Title V
Why it matters:This provision represents a powerful, retroactive application of the REINS Act, effectively creating a 'sunset' mechanism for a vast number of existing regulations. It's buried because its full implications—the potential expiration of numerous long-standing rules—are far-reaching and could be highly controversial if highlighted upfront.
Case for: Proponents argue that this ensures accountability for the entire body of federal regulations, not just new ones. They contend that many existing rules are outdated, ineffective, or overly burdensome and should be subject to democratic review and re-approval.
Case against: Opponents argue that this provision would create massive regulatory uncertainty and chaos, as agencies and regulated entities would face the prospect of numerous rules expiring. They contend that it would overwhelm Congress with an impossible task of reviewing and re-approving thousands of regulations, leading to the arbitrary termination of essential protections.
Estimated impact: Potentially catastrophic for the existing regulatory framework, as a significant portion of federal rules could expire if Congress fails to re-approve them within the specified timeframe. This could affect environmental protection, financial stability, public health, and worker safety.