State Coalition Sues Trump Administration Over Rollback of Corporate Transparency Rule

A coalition of 21 U.S. states and the District of Columbia has sued the Trump administration over its recent rollback of corporate ownership reporting requirements. The lawsuit, filed Tuesday, seeks to overturn an August rule that effectively dismantled a key anti-corruption law aimed at increasing financial transparency.

The Legal Challenge

The lawsuit, filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Oregon, argues that the administration exceeded its authority by using the rulemaking process to nullify an act of Congress. The states contend that the new rule, finalized in August, guts the 2021 Corporate Transparency Act by exempting more than 99.9% of the companies originally required to report their ownership information.

"The executive branch cannot repeal a law by rulemaking," the court filing states. The suit names Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, the Department of the Treasury, and its Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) as defendants. New York Attorney General Letitia James, who joined the lawsuit, said in a statement that the administration's rule allows "the true owners of both foreign and domestic shell companies to remain anonymous."

Background on the Disputed Rule

The 2021 Corporate Transparency Act was passed to combat illicit finance by requiring companies to report their beneficial owners to FinCEN. This information is intended to help law enforcement prevent money laundering, sanctions evasion, and other financial crimes conducted through anonymous shell corporations.

Ad

However, the Trump administration's rule in August exempted U.S. companies and individuals from this requirement. At the time, Treasury Secretary Bessent described the move as "eliminating a burdensome reporting requirement for millions of law-abiding business owners without compromising our national security." The Treasury Department did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit.

Market and Security Implications

Critics of the rollback argue that it weakens critical tools for fighting financial crime. In a statement from August, U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren, a leading Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, warned that the policy change increases the risk of numerous illicit activities, including:

• Sanctions evasion
• Fraud and drug trafficking
• Sex trafficking and organized crime

For investors and financial institutions, the legal battle highlights the ongoing regulatory uncertainty surrounding anti-money laundering (AML) and corporate governance standards. The outcome could have significant implications for compliance departments and due diligence processes that rely on beneficial ownership data to assess risk.