The US House of Representatives dropped a proposed CBDC ban from the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), sparking backlash from Republicans like Rep. Keith Self, who accused leadership of breaking promises. The amendment aimed to block the Federal Reserve from issuing or testing central bank digital currencies, protecting financial privacy and open systems.
Rep. Keith Self’s amendment sought to prohibit Fed-backed digital assets, including CBDCs under any name, to prevent surveillance risks.
Congressional leaders promised inclusion of anti-CBDC language but excluded it from the final 3,086-page NDAA bill.
Critics including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene and Warren Davidson warn that CBDCs could enable government control over personal finances, amid a recovering crypto market valued at $3.16 trillion.
Discover why the US Congress rejected a CBDC ban in the NDAA, igniting debates on digital currency privacy. Explore Republican reactions and implications for crypto in 2025. Stay informed on financial policy—read more now.
What Happened to the Proposed CBDC Ban in the US NDAA?
The proposed CBDC ban in the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) was ultimately excluded from the final version of the bill, leading to significant frustration among conservative Republicans in the US House of Representatives. Rep. Keith Self (R-TX) had introduced an amendment titled “Anti-CBDC Surveillance State” that would have prevented the Federal Reserve from testing, issuing, or supporting any central bank digital currency (CBDC), including those labeled differently. This development broke an earlier assurance from House leadership to incorporate such protections, as confirmed by Self in public statements, highlighting ongoing tensions over digital currency policy.
How Are Republicans Reacting to the Dropped CBDC Ban?
Republican lawmakers have voiced strong opposition to the omission of the CBDC ban, emphasizing concerns about privacy, financial sovereignty, and potential government overreach. Rep. Keith Self, in an X post, detailed how his amendment, which also safeguarded “open, permissionless, and private” dollar-based systems, was sidelined despite promises of inclusion. This move, he argued, undermines efforts to protect against surveillance states enabled by CBDCs.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene echoed these sentiments, stating in an X post that she supports cryptocurrency innovation but opposes any framework allowing government interference with personal funds. She referenced her July vote against the GENIUS Act due to perceived CBDC loopholes and noted Speaker Johnson’s commitment to Rep. Tom Emmer’s anti-CBDC measure, which was not fulfilled. Greene’s position underscores a broader Republican view that CBDCs could empower authorities to restrict access to money, a risk she deemed unacceptable.
Similarly, Rep. Warren Davidson highlighted the dangers in multiple statements, warning that “CBDC inserts the government between you and your money.” He praised President Trump’s January executive order banning federal agencies from pursuing CBDCs—citing threats to privacy, sovereignty, and financial stability—but stressed the need for statutory backing. In a recent post, Davidson lamented Congress’s failure to deliver on the promised ban, especially as global central banks continue advancing their own digital currency initiatives. Data from the Federal Reserve indicates that while exploratory CBDC research was limited under the Biden administration, the Trump order marked a decisive pivot, yet legislative action remains elusive.
These reactions align with a faction of crypto-friendly Republicans who advocate for decentralized systems over centralized digital fiat. According to reports from congressional proceedings, the NDAA’s exclusion of the ban has fueled internal party debates, particularly as the bill authorizes a substantial defense budget amid other controversies like Ukraine funding. The 3,086-page document, now facing hard-liner scrutiny, exemplifies how digital currency policy has intersected with national security priorities.
Frequently Asked Questions
What Was the Purpose of Rep. Keith Self’s Anti-CBDC Amendment?
Rep. Keith Self’s “Anti-CBDC Surveillance State” amendment aimed to block the Federal Reserve from issuing, testing, or backing any central bank digital currency, including variants under different labels. In about 45 words, it sought to protect financial privacy by prohibiting government-enabled surveillance tools, ensuring open and permissionless digital dollar systems remain viable without federal interference.
Why Did House Republicans Promise a CBDC Ban in the NDAA?
House Republicans, including leadership, assured conservatives that anti-CBDC provisions from Rep. Tom Emmer’s measure would be integrated into the NDAA to close potential loopholes for digital currency development. This promise addressed fears of government overreach, making the bill more palatable amid rising concerns about privacy in an era of advancing central bank technologies—concerns that resonate clearly in voice searches for financial autonomy.
Has the Trump Administration Taken Steps Against CBDCs?
Yes, in January, President Trump’s executive order prohibited federal agencies from developing or promoting CBDCs, reversing prior exploratory efforts. It emphasized risks to personal privacy and economic stability, providing a strong policy signal while lawmakers debate permanent legislative bans.
How Does the Crypto Market Relate to This CBDC Debate?
The ongoing CBDC discussions in Congress occur against a backdrop of crypto market recovery, with the total capitalization at $3.16 trillion after a 2% dip in the last 24 hours. Bitcoin, trading around $93,682, has fallen 12% over 30 days but reflects broader investor interest in decentralized alternatives to potential government digital currencies.
Key Takeaways
- Broken Promises on CBDC Ban: House leadership’s failure to include the anti-CBDC amendment in the NDAA has eroded trust among conservatives, potentially complicating the bill’s passage.
- Privacy and Surveillance Concerns: Lawmakers like Greene and Davidson argue CBDCs could enable unprecedented government monitoring of transactions, contrasting with the privacy of decentralized cryptocurrencies.
- Executive vs. Legislative Action: While Trump’s order halts federal CBDC pursuits, experts call for congressional laws to ensure long-term protections and foster innovation in open digital finance systems.
Conclusion
The exclusion of the CBDC ban from the US NDAA marks a pivotal moment in the evolving debate over central bank digital currencies and their implications for financial freedom. With Republican leaders like Reps. Self, Greene, and Davidson decrying the decision as a betrayal of privacy safeguards, the incident underscores the growing intersection of digital policy and national legislation. As central banks worldwide, including the Federal Reserve, continue exploring CBDC frameworks, this congressional flashpoint highlights the urgent need for balanced regulations that support innovation without compromising individual rights. Investors and policymakers alike should monitor upcoming sessions for potential reintroductions of anti-CBDC measures, ensuring the US leads in promoting secure, decentralized financial futures.