Financial Surveillance at the Southern Border is Expanding

The heightened surveillance began in March 2025 with a geographic targeting order (or, GTO) issued by the Department of the Treasury. This temporary order lowered the threshold for currency transaction reports (CTRs) from $10,000 to just $200 for money service businesses like Western Union that operate in 30 zip codes along the border.

The surveillance order was quickly met with challenges in court by the Institute for Justice, and other organizations. And for a welcome change of pace, the courts agreed that something wasn’t adding up.

In Texas, the court described the $200 surveillance order as “unreasonable” because it “overreaches,” “defies common sense,” and “likely violates the Fourth Amendment.” The court issued an injunction to put the surveillance on ice until each side could make its case. A similar injunction was issued in California.

Yet, the Treasury had other plans. Instead of respecting the ongoing litigation, it issued a new order with a $1,000 threshold covering four times as many zip codes.

In the announcement of the new order, Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) Director Andrea Gacki said, “The reports generated by this Geographic Targeting Order will continue to help law enforcement investigate powerful illicit networks operating along the southwest border and beyond.” Yet strangely, when Gacki appeared before Congress just a few days later, she was unable to say how many criminals were caught because of this surveillance regime.

Instead, all we have been able to see is that small businesses have become trapped under hefty compliance burdens. And in a cruel twist of irony, the policy meant to catch criminals is likely pushing people into illegal markets.

One small business estimated that it would likely go from filing nine reports per week to filing 50,000 reports per week under the initial order. That is nothing short of an impossible standard to comply with. Another small business watched long lines of customers waiting to cash checks and send money to family dried up as customers became concerned about the new surveillance requirements.

Unfortunately, neither of the lack of results nor the impact on businesses has swayed the Treasury. In September 2026, the order was expanded again. What started in 30 zip codes was expanded to 304 zip codes. What started with a six-month limit has now gone on for nearly two years.

It didn’t matter to the government that there was a court case challenging the surveillance. It didn’t matter to the government that people were losing their businesses. Instead, all that seems to matter is the idea that the government should have unchecked access to our financial lives.

For the average person, it’s easy to write these concerns off. After all, this heightened surveillance regime is supposedly tucked away along the southern border. Yet, what’s happening in the south is only one piece of a vast financial surveillance system built under the Bank Secrecy Act for the past 56 years.

Banks are forced to verify your identity, report you for using more than $10,000 in cash, and report you for doing anything out of the norm. And for what? An estimated $59 billion a year is spent complying with the Bank Secrecy Act as banks file more than 28.7 million reports on customers to the government. Yet, the reports filed initiated only around 275 criminal investigations.

The Treasury should stop this heightened surveillance regime, and Congress should reform the laws that makes it possible. At the very least, geographic targeting orders should require a greater standard of evidence to justify their issuance. However, Congress should go further. It should repeal the Bank Secrecy Act and require law enforcement to get a warrant to go after financial records. Cashing a paycheck, sending money to family, or doing something out of the norm should not automatically put you on a government watchlist.

The people living in these communities should not have to prove their innocence to use financial services. Nor should small businesses have to choose between reporting their customers and closing their doors. It’s time to end unchecked surveillance, in all of its forms.