René Bennett, Bankrate.com

Joint bank accounts allow couples to manage budgets together, monitor spending and save for shared goals. But they aren’t right for every couple. And you don’t have to go with an all-or-nothing approach, either. You can have a joint account without merging all your finances.

Related Articles

Tylenol, Kleenex, Band-Aid and more put under one roof in $48.7 billion consumer brands deal

Nvidia and other tech companies prop up Wall Street as most stocks fall

Business People: Retired Rise CEO Lynn Noren honored for disability community work

‘Catastrophic’ hack underscores public defender security gaps

Real World Economics: Senators wake up and smell the tariffs

Here’s what you should consider before deciding whether a joint account, separate account, or a blend of both, is right for your relationship.

Banking statistics for couples

38 percent of couples in committed relationships use exclusively joint bank accounts.
More than one-third of couples (34 percent) have a mix of joint and separate bank accounts, while 27 percent have completely separate accounts.
40 percent of coupled U.S. adults say they have committed some form of financial infidelity, the most common of which is spending more than their partner would be OK with.

Why have a joint bank account?

Some couples maintain a joint bank account because it may make it easier to track spending and save for shared goals. But don’t set up a joint account simply because it seems like “the thing to do.” This decision should only be made with open communication and a lot of self-reflection.

Here are a few main reasons to open a joint account with your significant other:

Saving for joint goals: You don’t have to go all-in on joint accounts to have a joint account. If you’re saving for a joint goal, such as a house or a wedding, consider opening a savings account so you can both contribute to a shared goal.
Paying down shared debt: Similarly, you may want to contribute to a shared account if the money leaving it is going to paying a shared debt, such as a mortgage.
Transparency in household spending and easier budgeting: With a joint bank account, you and your partner will be able to have a good running tally of fixed expenses, but you’ll also be able to keep track of variable costs.
Increased communication about finances: Having a joint account is very likely to lead to you talking more about your finances and plans. A 2024 study by Fidelity found that those who say they communicate well are less likely to report money as their greatest relationship challenge, and they’re more likely to rate their household’s financial health as excellent or very good.
Easier access to the other’s money in case of an emergency: By having each of you listed as an authorized account holder, you won’t need to jump through any hoops to access your money if the other is unavailable. For example, if one of you is in a terrible accident, the other will be able to access the funds without worrying about any red tape.

Joint savings may be the easier account to manage

A joint savings account where you’re both contributing to a goal or building an emergency fund may be the far less challenging account to manage together because you don’t have to track outgoing expenditures.

A joint checking account, on the other hand, can be more difficult to keep up with if both parties spend money without being clear on what the other person has done (or will do).

Why keep separate bank accounts instead of joint accounts?

More control over your money: When you open a joint account, both owners have full control of the money. That means your partner can drain the account without asking, and you’d have no recourse to get it back.
Avoid big conflicts: There’s a good chance that you have a different definition of financial responsibility than your partner does. If each of you is working to make money, it can be up to you how you choose to spend it without worrying about your partner questioning your decision.
Avoid being accountable for your partner’s debts: If you wind up merging all your finances — credit cards, too — you could be on the hook for your partner’s spending habits. For example, your partner may overspend and incur overdraft fees on a joint checking account, which may strain your relationship along with your finances.
A semblance of financial privacy: You don’t have to share everything with your partner or agree (or even discuss) every single spending decision. You can keep a separate checking account for yourself, even if you have a joint checking account with your partner, to spend on your own hobbies or gifts for friends you may not share.

Summary of pros and cons of joint accounts

Pros

You can work together to save for bigger life goals.
You may be able to create a plan to pay off debt.
You’ll create an easy path to budgeting together for the long term.
You will be able to set up regular discussions about money by looking at the account history.
You can both access the money in a worst-case scenario, particularly if one of you is incapacitated.

Cons

You’ll no longer have full control over your money.
You’ll have a messy road ahead if you break up.
You can wind up arguing more about overspending.
You’re getting on the pathway to sharing all of your finances, including debts, which requires careful consideration.

Try a combination of joint accounts and separate accounts

Fortunately, couples aren’t forced into an either-or solution here. You can easily use a separate account for your personal spending and a joint account for joint payments, such as rent or a mortgage, childcare, utilities and the like. Similarly, you can set up a shared savings account for joint savings goals, and separate savings for yourself. You and your significant other can enjoy the benefits of both accounts, such as joint bill paying, without so much of the concern about differences in spending habits.

With more bank accounts to manage, more coordination will be required to ensure that money is moved into a joint account for paying bills and other shared expenses each month. But that may also give room for both partners to be more communicative about their finances and work together to achieve that coordination.

Bottom line

Navigating personal finances as a couple requires trust and communication in any situation. Whether you’re creating a new account for the both of you or keeping your accounts separate, it’s important to make sure both partners are on the same page when it comes to where your money goes. You don’t have to combine all your money, but you should both have a clear understanding of how your money comes in and goes out.

Key takeaways

Couples who share expenses can consider a joint bank account to track spending but should understand the pros and cons before opening one.
Joint savings accounts can be helpful to save for shared goals or a shared emergency fund.
There are downsides to joint accounts, such as the lack of privacy.

(Visit Bankrate online at bankrate.com.)

©2025 Bankrate.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

By CLAIRE RUSH and GENE JOHNSON, Associated Press

PORTLAND, Ore. (AP) — A federal judge in Oregon on Sunday barred President Donald Trump’s administration from deploying the National Guard to Portland, Oregon until at least Friday, saying she “found no credible evidence” that protests in the city grew out of control before the president federalized the troops earlier this fall.

The city and state sued in September to block the deployment.

It’s the latest development in weeks of legal back-and-forth in Portland, Chicago and other U.S. cities as the Trump administration has moved to federalize and deploy the National Guard in city streets to quell protests.

The ruling from U.S. District Court Judge Karin Immergut, a Trump appointee, followed a three-day trial in which both sides argued over whether protests at the city’s U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement building met the conditions for using the military domestically under federal law.

In a 16-page filing late Sunday, Immergut said she would issue a final order on Friday due to the voluminous evidence presented at trial, including more than 750 exhibits.

Related Articles

California law to protect Jewish students faces challenge over free speech concerns

Hearings to focus on National Guard deployments in the nation’s capital and Memphis, Tennessee

Some Head Start preschools shutter as government shutdown continues

Hegseth visits inter-Korean border ahead of security talks with South Korean officials

A major question for the Supreme Court: Will it treat Trump as it did Biden?

Judge says claims of protest violence are overstated

The purpose of the deployment, according to the Trump administration, is to protect federal personnel and property where protests are occurring or likely to occur. Legal experts said that a higher appellate court order that remains in effect would have barred troops from being deployed anyway.

Immergut wrote that most violence appeared to be between protesters and counter-protesters and found no evidence of “significant damage” to the immigration facility at the center of the protests.

“Based on the trial testimony, this Court finds no credible evidence that during the approximately two months before the President’s federalization order, protests grew out of control or involved more than isolated and sporadic instances of violent conduct that resulted in no serious injuries to federal personnel,” she wrote.

Ruling follows weeks of back and forth in federal court

The complex case comes as Democratic cities targeted by Trump for military involvement — including Chicago, which has filed a separate lawsuit on the issue — seek to push back. They argue the president has not satisfied the legal threshold for deploying troops and that doing so would violate states’ sovereignty. The administration argues that it needs the troops because it has been unable to enforce the law with regular forces — one of the conditions set by Congress for calling up troops.

Immergut issued two orders in early October that blocked the deployment of the troops leading up to the trial. She previously found that Trump had failed to show that he met the legal requirements for mobilizing the National Guard. She described his assessment of Portland, which Trump has called “war-ravaged” with “fires all over the place,” as “simply untethered to the facts.”

One of Immergut’s orders was paused Oct. 20 by a three-judge panel of the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. But late Tuesday, the appeals court vacated that decision and said it would rehear the matter before an 11-judge panel. Until the larger panel rehears the case, the appeals court’s initial order from early October — under which the National Guard is federalized but not deployed — remains in effect.

Federal witness describes ‘surprise’ at troop deployment

During the Portland trial, witnesses including local police and federal officials were questioned about the law enforcement response to the nightly protests at the city’s ICE building. The demonstrations peaked in June, when Portland police declared one a riot. The demonstrations typically drew a couple dozen people in the weeks leading up to Trump’s National Guard announcement.

The Trump administration said it has had to shuffle federal agents from elsewhere around the country to respond to the Portland protests, which it has characterized as a “rebellion” or “danger of rebellion” — another one of the conditions for calling up troops under federal law.

Federal officials working in the region testified about staffing shortages and requests for more personnel that have yet to be fulfilled. Among them was an official with the Federal Protective Service, the agency within the Department of Homeland Security that provides security at federal buildings, whom the judge allowed to be sworn in as a witness under his initials, R.C., due to safety concerns.

R.C., who said he would be one of the most knowledgeable people in DHS about security at Portland’s ICE building, testified that a troop deployment would alleviate the strain on staff. When cross-examined, however, he said he did not request troops and that he was not consulted on the matter. He also said he was “surprised” to learn about the deployment and that he did not agree with statements about Portland burning down.

Attorneys for Portland and Oregon said city police have been able to respond to the protests. After the police department declared a riot on June 14, it changed its strategy to direct officers to intervene when person and property crime occurs, and crowd numbers have largely diminished since the end of that month, police officials testified.

Another Federal Protective Service official whom the judge also allowed to testify under his initials said protesters have at times been violent, damaged the facility and acted aggressively toward officers working at the building.

The ICE building closed for three weeks over the summer due to property damage, according to court documents and testimony. The regional field office director for ICE’s Enforcement and Removal Operations, Cammilla Wamsley, said her employees worked from another building during that period. The plaintiffs argued that was evidence that they were able to continue their work functions.

Oregon Senior Assistant Attorney General Scott Kennedy said that “without minimizing or condoning offensive expressions” or certain instances of criminal conduct, “none of these incidents suggest … that there’s a rebellion or an inability to execute the laws.”

Johnson reported from Seattle.

By ED WHITE, Associated Press

DETROIT (AP) — Two men were charged with terrorism-related crimes in the Detroit area after federal authorities made arrests and seized a cache of weapons last week in a storage unit and elsewhere, officials said Monday.

Related Articles

Hearings to focus on National Guard deployments in the nation’s capital and Memphis, Tennessee

FBI raid at Idaho horse track shows how immigration is a top focus across law enforcement

Tylenol, Kleenex, Band-Aid and more put under one roof in $48.7 billion consumer brands deal

Nvidia and other tech companies prop up Wall Street as most stocks fall

After mistaken deportation, Abrego Garcia fights smuggling charges. Here’s what to know

The men had scouted LGBTQ+ bars in Ferndale, a Detroit suburb, according to a 72-page criminal complaint unsealed in federal court.

FBI Director Kash Patel had announced arrests Friday, but no other details were released at the time while agents searched a home in Dearborn and a storage unit in nearby Inkster.

The court filing says the two men who were charged and other co-conspirators were inspired by Islamic State extremism. Investigators say a minor was also involved in the discussions.

The FBI said the men repeatedly referred to “pumpkins” in their conversations, a reference to a Halloween attack.

The two men will appear in court Monday afternoon for their initial appearance. Defense lawyer Amir Makled over the weekend seemed to wave off the allegations, saying they were the result of “hysteria” and “fearmongering.”

By JANIE HAR, Associated Press

SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — The American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee is challenging a new California law designed to protect Jewish students from discrimination, arguing it is unconstitutionally vague and violates their free speech rights.

The federal complaint, filed Sunday in San Jose, seeks to invalidate legislation Gov. Gavin Newsom signed last month, creating an Office of Civil Rights to help schools identify and prevent antisemitism. State lawmakers approved the legislation as political tensions have flared in the U.S. over Israel’s war in Gaza.

The new law, which takes effect Jan. 1, does not define antisemitism but gives educators the impression that they could be charged with discrimination “if they expose their students to ideas, information, and instructional materials that may be considered critical of the State of Israel and the philosophy of Zionism,” according to the complaint.

Jenin Younes, national legal director at the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee, says the lack of guidance has a chilling effect on speech among educators.

“They censor themselves very broadly because they don’t know what’s going to get them into trouble,” she said.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of individual teachers and students in California public schools, and the Los Angeles Educators for Justice in Palestine.

In the complaint, middle school science teacher Jonah Olson, says students at his rural, largely Christian school district, often ask him what it means to be Jewish. He responds in part by saying that his Judaism does not include support for the State of Israel, and now he fears that might violate the law.

Related Articles

Judge again bars Trump administration from deploying troops to Portland

Hearings to focus on National Guard deployments in the nation’s capital and Memphis, Tennessee

Some Head Start preschools shutter as government shutdown continues

Hegseth visits inter-Korean border ahead of security talks with South Korean officials

A major question for the Supreme Court: Will it treat Trump as it did Biden?

Parents who are part of the lawsuit say they fear their children will be prevented from learning about differing perspectives on Israel, Palestinians and the Middle East.

Students in public schools nationwide are generally protected against discrimination through state, federal and district policies, but supporters of the law say they needed to do more given a surge in harassment and bullying of Jewish and Israeli students.

The Anti-Defamation League, which supports the new law, said 860 antisemitic acts such as harassment, vandalism and assault were reported to the group last year at non-Jewish K-12 schools nationwide. The number is a 26% decrease from the previous year but much higher than the 494 reported in 2022.