More than 1 million Californians and Texans are about to face a new level of financial surveillance of the federal government. Although cash transactions of more than $ 10,000 have been reported for a long time under current law, now many transactions of only $ 200 must be informed in 30 postal codes along the border with Mexico. Financial surveillance in the United States has needed a reform, but this policy marks little more than another intrusion in the lives of Americans.
The new policy was officially announced For the Department of the Treasury, the Treasury Financial Crime Control Network to “further combat illegal activities and money laundering of the headquarters in Mexico and other criminal actors along the southwest border of the United States.” As of April and continuing at least in September, people in the counties of San Diego and Imperial in California and Cameron, El Paso, Hidalgo, Maverick and Webb in Texas can expect additional scrutiny when using when using companies that provide services such as collection collection, monetary turns, currency exchanges and money transfers.
Every day, people visit companies such as Western Union and Ria Money transfer to cash payment checks, send remittances to the family or even the unused exchange weights after a trip to Mexico. However, people in the designated areas will now be reported to the federal government if they need to send or collect only $ 200 in these businesses.
And as if the $ 200 brand was not low enough, surveillance can also be applied to minor transactions. The financial crimes compliance network observed in its Official Order that “encourages the voluntary presentation of Sars [suspicious activity reports] when appropriate “for flag attempts” to evade the threshold of $ 200 … “(it is a crime for Avoid knowing the reporting threshold when breaking payments or spending less).
In other words, people could be reported to the government for transactions to $ 190, $ 150 or even less. The Americans tell surveyrs that their financial privacy must be protected, according to the 4th amendment. But under the new order, simple and everyday transactions could put the Californians and Texans in a government surveillance list.
The Secretary of the Treasury, Scott Besent, considers such an invasion of privacy “part of an approach to the entire government to combat the threat” of the activity of the poster and drug trafficking. “The treasure is still focused,” he said in the announcement, “by taking advantage of all our tools and authorities available to identify and better counteract these criminal activities.”
In Besent defense, organized crime is not easy to stop. However, it is much more likely that they are most who are most affected by this policy. The reality is that mass financial surveillance is far from being effective in combating crime.
In 2023, the United States companies and financial institutions spent $ 59 billion on compliance costs to help fight money laundering and other crimes. They presented more than 27 million reports: 20.8 million were on monetary transactions that complied with the threshold of $ 10,000. However, despite the billions of spent dollars and the millions of reports submitted, the internal tax service only began 372 investigations on criminal cases that year due to one of those reports.
It is unlikely that expanding this inefficient system has a significant impact on crime, but it is likely to push people more to the financial strip. Giving companies a 30 -day warning that need to start informing customers could mean that many of them can stop serving the designated postal codes or close completely. For customers, which often have lower income, this may mean losing access to the few options available.
Some companies can eat the cost since the policy ends on September 9. Even so, the treasure could repeatedly renew the surveillance order for additional periods of 180 days if it decides. Then the way ahead is very uncertain.
However, what is certain is that the new treasure policy will undermine financial privacy at a time when more and more Americans call to strengthen it.
The Americans were annoying when the Biden administration tried to make banks report on accounts with only $ 600 in activity per year, and people were upset when the United States immigration and customs application collected records in millions of transactions in California, Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and Mexico. People should be annoying now that the Trump administration wants reports on $ 200 in activity. It is time for Congress to establish a right to financial privacy that is in line with the protections of the 4th amendment, many Americans already think they have.
Nicholas Anthony is a policy analyst at the Cato Institute Center for Monetary and Financial Alternatives.
Perspectives
Times Insights It offers an analysis generated by the voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear in any news article.
point of view
Perspective
The following content generated by AI works perplexed. Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.
Ideas expressed in the piece
- The article argues that reducing the cash transaction reports threshold for $ 200 In 30, adjacent border postal codes disproportionately invade financial privacy for daily activities such as charging payment checks, sending remittances or exchanging currency[1]. This policy, critics affirm, runs the risk of placing residents respectful of the law, particularly low -income individuals and immigrant communities, in government surveillance lists for routine transactions.[1][3].
- Critics highlight the inefficiency of politics, noting that existing financial surveillance systems generated 27 million reports In 2023 but it led to alone 372 IRS criminal investigationsSuggest that extended reports will further load the system without significantly stopping the cartel activity[1].
- The broad scope of the policy could force companies as checking services or currency exchanges to reduce operations in specific areas, which limits financial access to marginalized communities.[1][3]. Voluntary transactions reports below $ 200 also runs the risk of overmirconization, since even smaller amounts can trigger suspicion[1].
- The defenders emphasize that mass surveillance contradicts 4th amendment protection and public feeling, citing a violent reaction against previous proposals of the benefit era to monitor bank transactions of $ 600[1][3]. They ask for the action of Congress to strengthen financial privacy rights[1].
Different views on the subject
- The Treasury Department defends policy as a tool to interrupt the financing of the poster and drug trafficking, arguing that reducing the threshold to $ 200 helps to track the illicit cash flows in the high -risk border regions[2]. Secretary Scott Besent has framed it as part of a “approach to the entire government” to combat transnational crime[2].
- Proponents argue that addressing money service companies, such as exchange houses and remittance suppliers, add lagoons exploited by criminal networks to wash funds[2][3]. Politics excludes banks, focusing on sectors historically linked to illegal activity[2].
- Supporters argue that geographical and temporal limits (30 postal codes, as of April -September 2025) ensure proportionality, while preserving the authority to renew order if threats persist[2]. They emphasize the need for innovative strategies to counteract evolutionary poster tactics.
- The officials responsible for enforcing the law have cited precedents, such as anti -terrorist financial surveillance programs, to justify the need for measurement of the measure, despite the concerns about overreach[4].
