Financial Access Protection Act
- Sponsor
- Rep. Torres, Ritchie [D-NY-15]
- Committees
- Financial Services Committee (primary)
- Last action
- Apr 30, 2026
Bottom line
The bill aims to protect consumers' privacy regarding their immigration and citizenship status in financial interactions, potentially expanding financial access for undocumented individuals, while clarifying that anti-money laundering and financial crime reporting requirements remain in effect.
What it actually does
This bill, the "Financial Access Protection Act," prohibits a broad range of financial institutions, including banks, credit unions, and consumer reporting agencies, from requiring, collecting, maintaining, or disclosing information about a consumer's citizenship or immigration status. It also prevents federal banking agencies from mandating or encouraging such data collection. The bill explicitly states it does not alter Bank Secrecy Act obligations or compliance with financial crime reporting.
Proponents argue
Proponents argue this bill would enhance financial inclusion and protect vulnerable populations, particularly immigrants, from discrimination or fear of engaging with financial services. They contend that requiring or collecting such sensitive information creates barriers to accessing essential banking services, pushing individuals into less regulated or informal financial systems, which can increase risks for both consumers and the broader financial system. They emphasize that the bill maintains existing anti-money laundering and financial crime reporting obligations, ensuring national security is not compromised.
Opponents contend
Opponents might argue that restricting financial institutions from collecting citizenship or immigration status information could hinder efforts to verify identity, assess risk, or comply with certain regulatory requirements, even if the bill explicitly carves out Bank Secrecy Act obligations. They might express concerns about potential loopholes for illicit financial activities if institutions are limited in the information they can gather, or argue that certain status information is relevant for comprehensive risk assessment in a global financial context.
The bill is very short and straightforward, making it highly accessible for a quick but thorough review.
Section 2(a)
Prohibition on Requiring, Collecting, and Disclosing Citizenship or Immigration Status
This provision forbids covered financial institutions from asking for, collecting, keeping, or sharing a consumer's citizenship or immigration status. This applies whether it's a condition for opening an account, maintaining one, or accessing financial services. It also prohibits these institutions from transmitting this information to any federal agency or governmental entity.
Supporters argue
Supporters argue this provision directly addresses barriers to financial access for immigrant communities, ensuring that individuals are not denied services or subjected to intrusive questioning based on their immigration status. This fosters greater financial inclusion and reduces the likelihood of discrimination.
Critics contend
Critics might contend that this prohibition could limit financial institutions' ability to conduct thorough customer due diligence, potentially increasing risks related to identity verification or compliance with future, unforeseen regulatory requirements, even with the explicit carve-out for BSA.
Tradeoffs
The provision balances consumer privacy and financial access for immigrants against the potential desire of some institutions or regulators for more comprehensive demographic data for risk assessment or other purposes.
Section 2(b)
Prohibition on Federal Banking Agencies Requiring or Encouraging Status Collection
This section prevents appropriate Federal banking agencies from creating any regulation, rule, order, guidance, or informal request that would require or encourage financial institutions to collect or maintain information about a consumer's citizenship or immigration status. It also prohibits these agencies from making supervisory ratings, enforcement decisions, or approvals conditional on such data collection or reporting.
Section 2(c)
Enforcement by Appropriate Federal Banking Agencies
This provision assigns the responsibility for enforcing the prohibitions outlined in the bill to each respective "appropriate Federal banking agency" for the covered financial institutions they supervise.
Section 2(e)
Preservation of Bank Secrecy Act and Financial Crime Reporting Obligations
This clause clarifies that nothing in the Act should be interpreted to change or limit a financial institution's existing obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) or other federal, state, or local reporting requirements related to preventing financial crimes like money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions compliance.
This section clarifies that the bill does not alter or limit obligations under the Bank Secrecy Act or other reporting requirements related to preventing financial crimes, including money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions compliance.
Section 2(e)
Why it matters:This is standard legislative practice to clarify the scope of a bill and avoid unintended conflicts with existing law, rather than being evasive.
Case for: Supporters would argue this provision is essential to ensure the bill does not inadvertently undermine critical national security and financial integrity safeguards, providing necessary clarity to financial institutions and regulators.
Case against: Critics might argue that while explicit, the general prohibition could still create a perception among some institutions that they should be more cautious in all data collection, potentially impacting broader risk management practices beyond the explicit BSA carve-out.
Estimated impact: Ensures that existing frameworks for combating financial crimes remain fully operational and unaffected by the new prohibitions on citizenship/immigration status collection.