Staff Reports
Representative Chip Roy introduced the REMITTANCE Act this week, proposing a 25% tax on remittances sent from people in the United States who are not U.S. citizens. This is a bold and blunt move to stop what Roy calls a drain on the American economy. It builds on last year’s One Big Beautiful Bill, which already created a smaller remittance fee, and now pushes the idea much farther.
What the REMITTANCE Act Would Do
The REMITTANCE Act, short for Reducing External Monetary International Transfers to Advance National Capital Efficiency, would levy a 25% tax on remittances sent by noncitizens. Representative Chip Roy’s office released the bill and a statement this week saying the change would “affirm Congress’s commitment to countering illegal immigration and advancing strong economic policies.” Conservative immigration groups like the Immigration Accountability Project and FAIR praised the proposal, calling it a way to keep American money in America.
Why the Proposal Matters
Remittances are a big number — the United States is the world’s largest source of outbound remittances, and total flows can be in the hundreds of billions of dollars in a given year. Roy and supporters point out that a lot of money leaves our economy every year to support families abroad, and they see a link between those outflows and the incentives that attract illegal immigration. The One Big Beautiful Bill already put a small remittance excise tax in place, and Treasury and the IRS are writing rules to make that law work. Roy’s plan is an attempt to go much further.
Practical Questions and Real-World Effects
The policy sounds simple on paper — tax noncitizen transfers harder — but the real world is never that neat. Who counts as a noncitizen under the law: an undocumented immigrant, a lawful permanent resident, a seasonal worker on a visa? How would banks and money-transfer operators collect a 25% levy without hammering lawful workers and disrupting business? And don’t forget the likely side effects: higher costs for poor families abroad, a push toward informal or cash channels that dodge regulation, and headaches for regulators and remittance companies. If the goal is to deter illegal migration, sloppy drafting could just create headlines and court fights while doing little to change behavior.
A Conservative Path Forward
Republicans should applaud Representative Roy for thinking big about keeping American dollars at home and for pressing an economic lever many in Washington prefer to ignore. But conservatives are also practical. If we’re going to levy a heavy remittance tax, do it alongside clear definitions, tight enforcement on employers and border security, and exemptions for victims or humanitarian transfers. Otherwise, we get a policy that sounds tough but ends up being messy, unfair, and easily gamed. A 25% remittance tax could be a powerful tool — if and only if Congress gets the language right and pairs it with real border and workplace enforcement.
