A congressional report recently unveiled allegations that the Biden administration collaborated with several banks to monitor the financial activities of individuals suspected to be supporters of then President-elect Donald Trump without proper legal warrants.
The allegations say that federal agencies, in cooperation with financial institutions, infringed upon the privacy of citizens by surveilling their financial transactions, raising constitutional concerns, as the Daily Mail reports.
The House Judiciary Select Subcommittee on the Weaponization of the Federal Government has issued a report criticizing these practices. According to the report, financial institutions, including Bank of America, Wells Fargo, and Chase, provided the U.S. government with access to customer transaction data without judicial warrants. This purportedly enabled federal agencies like the FBI to oversee the financial dealings of Americans, particularly those who supported Trump.
Particularly following the Jan. 6, 2021, unrest, Bank of America is reported to have voluntarily submitted data to the FBI. This surveillance covered individuals who had used Bank of America cards in Washington, D.C., around that date. The scope of the investigation involved at least 13 financial institutions, which breached the privacy of numerous Americans.
The report also revealed some staggering numbers; allegedly, over 14,000 federal employees accessed sensitive financial data, performing 3.3 million searches in the year 2023 alone. Financial institutions involved were guided by the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) and the FBI to use specific “thresholds” that dictated when data should be submitted.
In this scenario, targets included purchases identified as potentially related to religious texts and searches containing terms such as "MAGA" and "Trump." Transactions at sporting goods stores like Cabela's and Bass Pro Shops also became points of focus during this financial surveillance.
The report cited instances where the financial transactions of 211 individuals were flagged in connection with the events following Jan. 6. The critique of these actions is rooted in the notion that the surveillance was not primarily targeting criminal activity but was more focused on political biases.
Janet Yellen, the U.S. secretary of the Treasury, faced inquiries regarding FinCEN's role in facilitating these activities. Yellen has vowed to thoroughly review the claims and scrutinize the practices in question. Meanwhile, House Republicans have raised accusations against crowdfunding platforms, suggesting they were coerced into reporting financially or religiously significant transactions.
The report mentions platforms like GoFundMe and Eventbrite as being implicated in these efforts to track politically expressive transactions. The alleged creation of “profiles” of citizens based on their political beliefs or religious expressions raises significant debates around privacy and freedom of expression.
Critics argue this effort involved covert methods, including a "secret portal" used by over 650 companies to share these sensitive profiles with government agencies. The potential misuse of such a significant amount of personal data heightens concerns over privacy rights and the balance of surveillance needs in the digital age.
Statements from the Republican-led panel claimed the federal government had effectively conditioned financial institutions to act as an extension of federal surveillance efforts. In an illustrative presentation, the subcommittee emphasized the surveillance impacts on private citizens.
George Hill pointed out that while Bank of America’s data sharing was voluntary, it nonetheless raised ethical questions. Peter Sullivan explained that specific thresholds were set by federal agencies to determine when a suspicious activity report should be issued by banks.
The allegations laid against the Biden administration and the involved financial institutions have sparked intense debate on Capitol Hill. These discussions center on the boundaries between national security and individual freedoms, as well as the transparency required in such government collaborations.
