HB7097 prohibits any individual who “receives public assistance” from sending money abroad by international wire transfer and requires providers of international wire transfer services to obtain a written disclosure from customers stating whether they receive means‑tested benefits. The bill defines "public assistance" as any payment or other benefit from a means‑tested welfare or public assistance program.
The measure matters to financial institutions, remittance companies, state benefit administrators, and low‑income households that rely on cross‑border support. It creates new intake and recordkeeping requirements for transfer providers, raises verification and privacy questions, and would likely change how and where beneficiaries send money to relatives overseas.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill bars individuals who receive any means‑tested welfare payment from initiating international wire transfers from the United States. It also requires any person offering international wire transfer services to collect a written disclosure from prospective senders stating whether the sender receives public assistance before providing the service.
Who It Affects
Domestic recipients of means‑tested programs (e.g., SNAP, TANF, Medicaid where applicable), banks and nonbank remittance providers that offer international wire transfers, and foreign recipients who rely on U.S. remittances. State and federal benefit administrators will face indirect operational impacts through changed beneficiary behavior.
Why It Matters
The bill adds a new compliance chokepoint for remittances and creates a recordkeeping obligation that interacts with existing privacy and anti‑money‑laundering rules. Practically, it could reduce formal remittance flows from benefit recipients, shift transfers into informal or higher‑cost channels, and impose operational burdens on transfer providers without specifying verification or enforcement mechanisms.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
HB7097 has three operative elements. First, it prohibits any individual who "receives public assistance" from sending money abroad using an international wire transfer originating in the United States.
The prohibition is categorical in language: an individual who receives a payment or other benefit from a means‑tested welfare or public assistance program may not use international wire transfer services to send funds to persons or entities outside the United States.
Second, the bill places a pre‑service information requirement on providers: any person that offers international wire transfer services to individuals must, before providing the service, require the individual to notify the provider in writing whether they receive public assistance. The bill does not spell out what form that written notification must take, what supporting documentation (if any) a provider may request, nor how long providers must retain the disclosure.Third, the bill defines "public assistance" narrowly by reference to receipt of a payment or other benefit from a means‑tested welfare or public assistance program.
That definition imports ambiguity because it depends on what counts as "means‑tested" and which specific programs a provider or recipient considers covered. The text contains no penalty clause, no agency enforcement regime, and no rule about how providers should handle false statements, meaning most operational questions are left to providers and later regulation or litigation.Taken together, these provisions shift responsibility for gatekeeping remittances to private transfer providers, require new customer intake practices, and create immediate practical questions about verification, privacy protections for benefit status data, and alternatives for beneficiaries who need to support people abroad.
Because the bill addresses only international wire transfers, individuals may seek other methods (cash, money orders, informal networks, or non‑wire remittance products) to move money outside the U.S., with likely implications for access, cost, and regulatory oversight.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill makes it illegal for any individual who receives benefits from a means‑tested welfare or public assistance program to send funds abroad by international wire transfer.
Any person offering international wire transfer services must, before providing service, obtain a written notification from the sender stating whether the sender receives public assistance.
The term "public assistance" is defined solely as receipt of a payment or other benefit from a means‑tested welfare or public assistance program; the bill does not list specific programs.
The text contains no specified penalties, enforcement agency, or administrative process for determining violations or for provider noncompliance.
The prohibition applies only to international wire transfers; it does not address other cross‑border payment methods, leaving potential workarounds and regulatory gaps.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Provides the act's short name, the "No American Benefits Abroad Act." This is purely formal; it does not affect substance or implementation but signals the statute's policy focus for regulators and courts that later interpret legislative intent.
Ban on international wire transfers by benefit recipients
Establishes the core prohibition: an individual who receives public assistance may not transfer money from the United States to a person or entity outside the United States by means of an international wire transfer. Practically, this requires providers to block or refuse international wire transfer requests from any customer who is a benefit recipient — unless a provider chooses not to enforce or the customer misstates status. The section does not address whether attempted transfers are void, whether funds already sent are recoverable, or what civil or criminal penalties apply to senders who violate the statute.
Pre‑service written disclosure requirement for providers
Requires any person that provides international wire transfer services to individuals to obtain, before providing the service, a written notice from the individual stating whether they receive public assistance. The provision shifts an information‑collection duty onto providers but leaves implementation detail unspecified: it does not define "person" (banks, nonbank remitters, fintechs), the content or form of the written notice, retention periods, verification standards, or remedies for false statements. Those omissions create immediate compliance questions for providers about intake procedures, document retention, and interaction with customer identification and privacy obligations.
Definition of 'public assistance'
Defines "public assistance" narrowly as any payment or other benefit from a means‑tested welfare or public assistance program. That definition imports complexity because determining what counts as a "means‑tested" program can vary by statute and administrative rule; it also raises edge cases such as categorical eligibility programs, emergency pandemic payments, or benefits administered at the state versus federal level. The provision neither enumerates covered programs nor provides a process for resolving disputes over whether a program qualifies as means‑tested.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Social Services across all five countries.
Explore Social Services in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- State and federal benefit program administrators — by reducing outbound transfers from beneficiary accounts, the bill could make it easier to track domestic program funds and limit perceived fiscal leakage, simplifying some program integrity narratives.
- Domestic, nonbeneficiary recipients of household funds — in households where some members receive benefits, funds that would have been sent abroad may remain available for local spending, potentially increasing local household liquidity.
- Certain incumbent remittance providers already enforcing restrictive policies — providers that already screen and block transfers to certain countries or customer classes face lower incremental compliance costs than entrants obliged to build new intake procedures.
Who Bears the Cost
- Recipients of U.S. means‑tested benefits who need to send support to relatives abroad — the ban directly curtails a common channel for family remittances and increases reliance on informal or higher‑cost alternatives.
- Banks, nonbank remittance firms, and fintechs that offer international wire transfers — they must add intake and recordkeeping workflows, train staff, and decide whether to implement verification checks or screen customers out to avoid downstream risk.
- Remittance recipients and foreign families — they may see reduced inflows, higher costs, or longer delays if senders shift to informal networks, money orders, or third parties not covered by the statute.
- Privacy and compliance functions at financial institutions — providers will collect sensitive welfare‑status data, triggering GLBA and other privacy compliance obligations and increasing risk exposure if data is mishandled.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The bill attempts to prevent the export of public‑assistance dollars by restricting financial activity of benefit recipients, but it does so by imposing private‑sector gatekeeping and data collection rather than creating a transparent administrative process — trading a public‑policy objective (limit outbound transfers of welfare funds) for operational burdens on providers and potentially reduced access and privacy protections for low‑income individuals.
The bill leaves major implementation questions unresolved. It requires a written disclosure from the sender, but it does not require or authorize providers to verify the disclosure against government benefit records, specify documentation standards, or identify a responsible enforcement agency.
Absent verification rules, the written notice is vulnerable to false attestation; absent penalties, providers may choose to block service rather than risk liability, effectively turning a disclosure rule into a de facto ban enforced by private parties.
The statute's narrow targeting of "international wire transfers" creates predictable circumvention risks. Beneficiaries and their networks can shift to cash pickups, money orders, peer‑to‑peer payment platforms not characterized as wire transfers, or informal value‑transfer systems.
Those shifts reduce regulatory visibility and can increase cost and exploitation risk for low‑income senders and recipients. Collecting welfare‑status information also raises privacy and nondiscrimination issues: operators will hold sensitive data about receipt of means‑tested benefits, and they will need policies to secure that data and to avoid profiling or service denials that could run afoul of other consumer‑protection rules.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.