Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

How the federal government weaponized the bank secrecy act to spy on Americans

Published

7 minute read

Armstrong Economics By Martin Armstrong

A Congressional investigation committee released an extremely concerning report this week entitled: “FINANCIAL SURVEILLANCE IN THE UNITED STATES: HOW THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT WEAPONIZED THE BANK SECRECY ACT TO SPY ON AMERICANS” that details how the US government has been monitoring American citizens through bank transactions, with an emphasis on citizens who have expressed conservative viewpoints.

“Financial data can tell a person’s story, including one’s “religion, ideology, opinions, and interests” as well as one’s “political leanings, locations, and more,”’ the report begins. This investigation began after a whistleblower who happens to be a retired FBI agent alerted Congress that the Bank of America (BoA) voluntarily provided the Biden Administration information on customers who used a credit or debit card in Washington, D.C., around the January 6 protests. The new report has revealed that federal agencies have been working “hand-in-glove with financial institutions, obtaining virtually unchecked access to private financial data and testing out new methods and new technology to continue the financial surveillance of American citizens.”

Surveilence

As I’ve said countless times, “money laundering” is ALWAYS the excuse for why the government must track and monitor our financial transactions. The Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) E-Filing System is a system for financial institutions to file reports required by the BSA electronically. By law, the BSA requires businesses to keep records and file reports to help prevent and detect money laundering. This is how the Biden Administration is attempting to disregard privacy and weaponize financial institutions.

US intelligence agencies searched through records for terms like “Trump” and “MAGA” to target Americans who they believed may hold “extremist” views. The agencies searched for Americans who purchased religious texts, such as the Bible, and also labeled them extremists. Anyone expressing disdain for the COVID lockdowns, vaccines, open borders, or the deep state were placed on a watchlist. Again, the BSA was used as a premise to pull transactions placed by the individuals on this list.

Debanking

As explained by the investigative committee:

“With narrow exception, federal law does not permit law enforcement to inquire into financial institutions’ customer information without some form of legal process.9  The FBI circumvents this process by tipping off financial institutions to “suspicious” individuals and encouraging these institutions to file a SAR—which does not require any legal process—and thereby provide federal law enforcement with access to confidential and highly sensitive information.10 In doing so, the FBI gets around the requirements of the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), which, per the Treasury Department, specifies that “it is . . . a bank’s responsibility” to “file a SAR whenever it identifies ‘a suspicious transaction relevant to a possible violation of law or regulation’”11 While at least one financial institution requested legal process from the FBI for information it was seeking,12 all too often the FBI appeared to receive no pushback. In sum, by providing financial institutions with lists of people that it views as generally “suspicious” on the front end, the FBI has turned this framework on its head and contravened the Fourth Amendment’s requirements of particularity and probable cause.”

Under this premise, anyone who held a viewpoint that opposed the Biden Administration was considered a “suspicious” individual who required monitoring. The Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network created a database to carefully watch potential dissenters. Over 14,000 government employees accessed the FinCEN database last year and conducted over 3 million searches without a warrant. In fact, over 15% of FBI investigations during 2023 has some link to this database. It is estimated that 4.6 million SARs and 20.8 million Currency Transaction Reports (CTRs) were filed in the last year.

The committee noted that the government is incorporating AI to quickly search the web for “suspicious” Americans:

“As the Committee and Select Subcommittee have discussed in other reports, the growth and expansion of AI present major risks to Americans’ civil liberties.211 For example, the Committee and Select Subcommittee uncovered AI being used to censor “alleged misinformation regarding COVID-19 and the 2020 election . . . .”212 Those concerns are not hypothetical. Some AI systems developed by Big Tech companies have been programmed with biases; for example, Google’s Gemini AI program praised liberal views while refusing to do the same for conservative views, despite claiming to be “objective” and “neutral.” With financial institutions seemingly adopting AI solutions to monitor Americans’ transactions, a similarly biased AI program could result in the systematic flagging or censoring of transactions that the AI is trained to view as “suspicious.”

This is extremely troubling and goes beyond government overreach and violated numerous Constitutional protections. The government effectively transformed banking institutions into spy agencies, and anyone who could potentially hold a view that did not fit the Biden-Harris agenda has been treated as potential terrorist. It is completely insane that someone could be seen as an extremist for purchasing a religious text or purchasing a firearm. This is discriminatory, predatory behavior that puts millions of lives at risk. Think of governments in the past who have rounded up names of dissenters based on religion or ideology. They claim they are merely observing us, but the goal is to silence us.

The committee said their investigation has just begun as they will not allow the government’s abuse of financial data to go unchecked. Furthermore, they are concerned that these warrantless searches can lead to widespread debanking practices where the government can easily block any dissenter from participating in society by crippling them financially. This is yet another reason why governments want to push banks to create CBDC so that they can punish citizens with a simple click of a button.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

DOJ drops Biden-era discrimination lawsuit against Elon Musk’s SpaceX

Published on

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

The Justice Department has withdrawn a discrimination lawsuit against Elon Musk’s SpaceX that was filed during the Biden administration. The lawsuit accused SpaceX of discriminatory hiring practices against asylum seekers and refugees. The move follows ongoing cost-cutting measures led by Musk as the head of the Department of Government Efficiency under the 47th President Donald Trump’s administration.

Key Details:

  • The DOJ filed an unopposed motion in Texas federal court to lift a stay on the case, signaling its intent to formally dismiss the lawsuit.

  • The lawsuit, filed in 2023, alleged SpaceX required job applicants to be U.S. citizens or permanent residents, a restriction prosecutors argued was unlawful for many positions.

  • Elon Musk criticized the lawsuit as politically motivated, asserting that SpaceX was advised hiring non-permanent residents would violate international arms trafficking laws.

Diving Deeper:

The Justice Department, led by Attorney General Pam Bondi, has moved to drop the discrimination lawsuit against SpaceX, marking another reversal of Biden-era legal actions. The case, initiated in 2023, accused SpaceX of discriminating against asylum seekers and refugees by requiring job applicants to be U.S. citizens or permanent residents. Prosecutors claimed the hiring policy unlawfully discouraged qualified candidates from applying.

The DOJ’s decision to withdraw the case follows a judge’s earlier skepticism about the department’s authority to pursue the claims. No official reason for the withdrawal was provided, and neither Musk, SpaceX, nor the DOJ have issued public statements on the development.

Elon Musk was outspoken in his criticism of the lawsuit, labeling it as a politically motivated attack. Musk argued that SpaceX was repeatedly informed that hiring non-permanent residents would violate international arms trafficking laws, exposing the company to potential criminal penalties. He accused the Biden-era DOJ of weaponizing the case for political purposes.

The decision to drop the lawsuit coincides with Musk’s growing influence within the Trump administration, where he leads the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). Under his leadership, DOGE has implemented aggressive cost-cutting measures across federal agencies, including agencies that previously investigated SpaceX. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), which proposed fining SpaceX $633,000 for license violations in 2023, is currently under review by DOGE officials embedded within the agency.

Meanwhile, SpaceX’s regulatory challenges appear to be easing. A Texas-based environmental group recently dropped a separate lawsuit accusing the company of water pollution at its launch site near Brownsville. The withdrawal of the DOJ lawsuit signals a significant victory for Musk as he continues to navigate regulatory scrutiny while advancing his business ventures under the Trump administration.

Continue Reading

Business

PepsiCo joins growing list of companies tweaking DEI policies

Published on

MXM logo MxM News

Quick Hit:

PepsiCo is the latest major U.S. company to adjust its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies as 47th President Donald Trump continues his campaign to end DEI practices across the federal government and private sector. The company is shifting away from workforce representation goals and repurposing its DEI leadership, signaling a broader trend among American corporations.

Key Details:

  • PepsiCo will end DEI workforce representation goals and transition its chief DEI officer to focus on associate engagement and leadership development.

  • The company is introducing a new “Inclusion for Growth” strategy as its five-year DEI plan concludes.

  • PepsiCo joins other corporations, including Target and Alphabet-owned Google, in reconsidering DEI policies following Trump’s call to end “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.”

Diving Deeper:

PepsiCo has announced significant changes to its DEI initiatives, aligning with a growing movement among U.S. companies to revisit diversity policies amid political pressure. According to an internal memo, the snacks and beverages giant will no longer pursue DEI workforce representation goals. Instead, its chief DEI officer will transition to a broader role that focuses on associate engagement and leadership development. This shift is part of PepsiCo’s new “Inclusion for Growth” strategy, set to replace its expiring five-year DEI plan.

The company’s decision to reevaluate its DEI policies comes as President Donald Trump continues his push against DEI practices, urging private companies to eliminate what he calls “illegal DEI discrimination and preferences.” Trump has also directed federal agencies to terminate DEI programs and has warned that academic institutions could face federal funding cuts if they continue with such policies.

PepsiCo is not alone in its reassessment. Other major corporations, including Target and Google, have also modified or are considering changes to their DEI programs. This trend reflects a broader corporate response to the evolving political landscape surrounding DEI initiatives.

Additionally, PepsiCo is expanding its supplier base by broadening opportunities for all small businesses to participate, regardless of demographic categories. The company will also discontinue participation in single demographic category surveys, further signaling its shift in approach to DEI.

As companies like PepsiCo navigate these changes, the debate over the future of DEI in corporate America continues. With Trump leading a campaign against these practices, more companies may follow suit in reevaluating their DEI strategies.

Continue Reading

Trending

X