Analyzing Americans' financial habits to infer political views undermines civil liberties, argues Laz Pieper of Coin Center.
By Laz Pieper|Edited by Cheyenne Ligon1 hr ago6 min readMake preferred on ShareShare this articleCopy linkX (Twitter)LinkedInFacebookEmailMake preferred onRecent investigations have uncovered that the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) is compiling data on the financial behaviors of Americans to assist local law enforcement in identifying potential criminal activities. This approach, referred to as predictive policing, raises serious concerns regarding civil liberties, as it relies heavily on extensive surveillance to accumulate and evaluate data, ultimately labeling individuals as potential criminals.
The fundamental issue lies in how information can be selectively interpreted. The state, acting as the data collector, shapes the narrative surrounding an individual by choosing which data points to highlight. This creates a significant risk of misuse, as any large dataset can be manipulated to support a predetermined conclusion.
As Cardinal Richelieu famously stated, “If you give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest of men, I will find something in them which will hang him.”
In the context of predictive policing, law enforcement monitors individuals closely to preemptively categorize them as criminals, often based on financial surveillance that treats transaction histories as incriminating evidence before any crime has been committed. This practice undermines the principle of presumption of innocence and positions individuals as suspects in a system ready to prosecute.
A notable case involved Kyle William Olson, whose traffic stop in Montana was initiated by a Border Patrol Predictive Intelligence Targeting Team (PITT). A DHS memo indicated that Olson’s financial activities matched patterns associated with drug-related offenses, yet it failed to clarify the data sources or methods used for this assessment. Although marijuana was discovered in Olson’s vehicle, this raises a critical question: why was the government analyzing his financial records without prior knowledge of any specific criminal act?
Other instances reported by 404 Media further illustrate this issue. Individuals have been stopped and interrogated based on tips derived from DHS data. Alek Schott, for instance, was pulled over for erratic driving and subjected to a search for drugs, which yielded no results. The Associated Press reported that federal agents had scrutinized Schott’s travel patterns using license plate recognition and other surveillance technologies. Schott is now suing Bexar County and its sheriff for violating his Fourth Amendment rights, a justified action given the circumstances.
The Institute for Justice emphasized that law enforcement must possess a factual basis for suspicion before initiating a stop, have a legitimate reason to prolong that stop, and require a warrant, consent, or a valid reason to search a vehicle. In Schott’s case, the deputy did not meet any of these standards, instead using an unjustified traffic stop to investigate alleged crimes he had not committed.
These incidents prompt essential questions regarding the origins of law enforcement's suspicions. Evidence suggests that the DHS Border Patrol may have instigated these stops by leveraging financial data. The Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), part of the Treasury Department responsible for enforcing the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA), could be a significant source of this information. The BSA mandates that financial institutions maintain records and report suspicious transactions to the government, which FinCEN then shares with other agencies, potentially including the DHS.
This data collection is extensive, as financial institutions often err on the side of caution by over-reporting to avoid non-compliance. Consequently, FinCEN accumulates vast amounts of information regarding Americans’ financial transactions.
However, this surveillance does not enhance safety; instead, it can lead to discrimination based on personal beliefs and associations. Historical examples show that financial surveillance has been used both in democratic societies and authoritarian regimes to suppress dissent.
In 2022, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau invoked emergency powers to freeze the accounts of protestors, claiming it was necessary for safety. This action mirrored similar tactics employed in China, where protestors faced account bans on platforms like WeChat.
The U.S. has demonstrated vulnerabilities in its financial systems that can be exploited against political adversaries. Following the January 6th Capitol incident, a Congressional report revealed that banks were pressured by FinCEN and the FBI to identify “extremist” spending behaviors, targeting individuals for their conservative views, such as purchasing religious texts. While the focus here is not on the events of January 6th, it is crucial to recognize that profiling Americans based on financial behaviors reflecting their political beliefs constitutes a misuse of the financial system.
Furthermore, these practices are not confined to a particular political ideology. In 2025, President Trump issued an Executive Order labeling Antifa as a domestic terrorist group, prompting a memo instructing law enforcement to disrupt financial networks supporting domestic terrorism. This reflects a similar targeting approach used against conservatives post-January 6th. The CATO Institute raised valid concerns about how far financial institutions might go to comply with such directives and when political opinions could become relevant in financial scrutiny.