Republicans have spent years telling Americans that they are the party of “America First.”

They say they want to protect American sovereignty. They say foreign governments should not dictate American policy. They warn Americans about foreign interference in our elections.

But now there is a contradiction that deserves far more scrutiny:

Why is a Republican-controlled government making it harder to identify who is actually behind American companies and the money flowing through them?

On August 11, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, or FinCEN, permanently eliminated beneficial-ownership reporting requirements for U.S.-created companies and U.S. persons. FinCEN also announced that it would delete previously reported information involving U.S. persons. (U.S. Department of the Treasury)

This isn’t some meaningless paperwork change.

The Corporate Transparency Act was created to give the government beneficial-ownership information that could be used to combat financial crimes, including money laundering and terrorist financing. The rollback therefore creates a serious transparency question: what happens when the government has less information about who actually owns and controls American companies?

And Republicans have been pushing to dismantle this transparency framework.

H.R. 425, the Repealing Big Brother Overreach Act, seeks to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act. Critics of the legislation have described it as effectively reopening the U.S. corporate system to greater risks of dirty money and anonymous shell companies. (The FACT Coalition)

Here’s where the story gets even more interesting.

An AIPAC lobbying disclosure provided for this investigation lists H.R. 425 among its specific lobbying issues and identifies the Department of the Treasury among the federal agencies covered by its lobbying activity.

That does not prove that AIPAC caused Treasury’s decision.

But it does establish something that deserves public scrutiny:

AIPAC was lobbying on legislation that sought to repeal the Corporate Transparency Act while Treasury was among the federal agencies identified in its lobbying activity.

And what exactly would repealing the Corporate Transparency Act mean?

It would dismantle a federal beneficial-ownership transparency requirement that was created in part to help combat money laundering and terrorist financing.

That is why this deserves investigation.

Not because AIPAC should be treated differently from any other lobbying organization, but because no powerful political organization should be exempt from scrutiny when it lobbies on laws affecting America’s financial transparency and national security.

Americans have a right to ask what policies powerful lobbying organizations are advocating, who those policies benefit, and what the consequences would be for American democracy.

This is especially important when we are talking about political money.

Foreign governments and foreign nationals are prohibited from directly financing American elections. That makes transparency and traceability critical safeguards against foreign interference.

If money can move through layers of American companies and shell companies while the government has less information about who ultimately owns or controls those entities, then following the money becomes more difficult.

That doesn’t mean every American company is a vehicle for foreign interference.

It means the government should have more tools to identify suspicious financial networks—not fewer.

And this is where the Republican Party’s “America First” rhetoric deserves to be challenged.

If America First actually means protecting American sovereignty, then foreign influence should face more transparency, more disclosure and more scrutiny—not less.

If Republicans genuinely believe foreign governments and foreign interests should not interfere in American politics, why would they support weakening a system designed to make financial ownership more transparent?

Why make it harder to determine who is behind the money?

Why make the financial trail harder to follow?

And why should Americans accept less transparency at precisely the moment when foreign influence in American politics is such a serious concern?

These questions aren’t about Jewish Americans.

They aren’t about someone’s religion.

They aren’t about whether someone supports or opposes Israel.

They are about American political power, lobbying, money, foreign influence and transparency.

We should scrutinize AIPAC.

We should scrutinize Republican lawmakers.

We should scrutinize Democratic lawmakers.

We should scrutinize every corporation, lobbying organization, foreign-linked interest and political donor that attempts to influence American policy.

No one should receive a free pass.

And Republicans certainly shouldn’t get one simply because they have branded themselves “America First.”

Because if America First means putting American interests before foreign interests, then weakening our ability to identify the people behind the money makes no sense.

Foreign influence should be easier to detect.

Shell companies should be easier to investigate.

Political money should be easier to trace.

And the people ultimately controlling that money should be easier for American investigators to identify.

Instead, the Trump administration has now permanently rolled back these federal reporting requirements for U.S. companies and U.S. persons. Treasury calls the change a victory for small businesses and a reduction in regulatory burdens. Critics argue that it creates opportunities for criminals and corrupt actors to exploit anonymous corporate structures. (U.S. Department of the Treasury)

Americans deserve answers.

Who pushed for these changes?

Who benefits from them?

Whose money becomes harder to trace?

And most importantly:

Why does “America First” suddenly seem to come with fewer questions about foreign influence?

If Republicans really believe in America First, they should be demanding maximum transparency about foreign money and foreign political influence.

Anything less isn’t protecting American sovereignty.

It’s making American sovereignty easier for powerful foreign political and financial interests to undermine.

By Jonathan Marquez and DeepSeek