Imagine waking up one day and every single purchase you make—your morning coffee, the gas in your tank, the birthday gift for your kid—is instantly visible to the federal government. Not just visible, but potentially programmable. Money that can expire, money that can be frozen if you attend the wrong rally or donate to the wrong cause. Sounds like dystopian fiction, right? Well, that’s exactly what some lawmakers say a central bank digital currency could become in the wrong hands.
And right now, in December 2025, there’s a full-on political brawl in Washington over whether America should slam the door shut on that possibility forever.
The Last-Ditch Push to Kill the Digital Dollar
A relatively quiet Texas Republican, Representative Keith Self, just threw a grenade into the final negotiations of the 2026 National Defense Authorization Act. His weapon of choice? An amendment with a name that leaves nothing to imagination: the “Anti-CBDC Surveillance State” provision.
In plain English, the amendment would make it illegal for the Federal Reserve to research, test, pilot, or ever issue a retail central bank digital currency. Not some watered-down version either—this is a total, statutory ban written into law, something no future president could undo with the stroke of a pen.
Why attach it to a defense bill, of all things? Because the NDAA is one of those “must-pass” pieces of legislation every year. It funds the military, sets policy for everything from ships to cyber defense, and almost never fails to cross the finish line. Slip something controversial into the NDAA, and suddenly it has a real shot at becoming law.
Promises Broken, Trust Shattered
According to Self and his allies, leadership actually promised that anti-CBDC language would be in the base text of the bill. When the final compromise version dropped and those protections were nowhere to be found, conservatives cried foul.
“Promises were broken to include this language in the National Defense Authorization Act. My amendment would fix the bill.”
– Rep. Keith Self, December 9, 2025
It’s classic Washington hardball. The House Rules Committee now gets to decide whether the amendment even gets a vote. If they block it, some conservatives are openly threatening to vote against the entire $900 billion defense package—something that would have been unthinkable just a few years ago.
From Campaign Rhetoric to Executive Action
None of this should come as a surprise if you followed the 2024 campaign even casually. Donald Trump made CBDCs a recurring villain on the trail, repeatedly calling them a “dangerous threat to freedom.” Within months of taking office in 2025, he signed an executive order directing every federal agency to cease any work that could facilitate a digital dollar.
That order was celebrated in crypto circles, but here’s the catch—executive orders are reversible. One new administration, one new pen, and poof, the policy disappears. Republicans in Congress have been desperate to turn Trump’s temporary win into something permanent.
In my view, that’s actually smart politics. If you really believe CBDCs represent an existential risk to personal liberty (and a lot of people do), then you don’t leave the door cracked open for 2029 or 2033.
The Surveillance Nightmare Scenario
Let’s be honest—the phrase “Anti-CBDC Surveillance State” is deliberately provocative. But strip away the rhetoric, and the core argument is pretty straightforward.
- A CBDC would be fully digital and centrally controlled.
- Every transaction could be tracked in real time.
- The government could theoretically program the money—letting it expire, restricting where it’s spent, or blocking certain individuals entirely.
- Social credit systems like China’s suddenly don’t look so far-fetched.
China’s digital yuan is the example that keeps coming up in these debates, and for good reason. Beijing already uses its digital currency infrastructure as one more tool in an already impressive surveillance toolbox. Travel too much? Your money stops working on high-speed rail. Criticize the party? Good luck buying groceries.
Obviously, the United States isn’t China. Our institutions are different, our culture is different. But once the infrastructure exists, who’s to say a future administration—left or right—wouldn’t be tempted to use it?
What About Privacy-Preserving Designs?
To be fair, not everyone warning about CBDCs is a conspiracy theorist. Some very serious economists and technologists have spent years trying to design privacy-preserving versions. Tokenized deposits, zero-knowledge proofs, tiered privacy models—there are genuinely clever ideas out there.
The problem, critics say, is that none of those privacy guarantees are ironclad when the issuer is the government itself. Laws change. Political pressures mount. And once you’ve handed over the master switch, good luck taking it back.
The Other Side of the Argument
Look, I get why some policymakers find CBDCs attractive. Faster payments. Financial inclusion for the unbanked. A stronger dollar in global competition with China. Cutting out middlemen who rake in fees. There are real arguments on that side.
The Federal Reserve itself has been pretty cautious, insisting any digital dollar would need explicit congressional authorization (which it obviously doesn’t have right now). Boston Fed and MIT’s research projects have slowed to a crawl under political pressure.
But here’s where the rubber meets the road: even if you trust this administration, even if you trust the current Fed, do you trust every administration and every Fed chair for the next hundred years? That’s what a CBDC infrastructure would require.
Stablecoins vs. CBDCs: The Private Alternative
One of the more fascinating sub-themes in this debate is how quickly private stablecoins have filled the vacuum. USDT, USDC, and newer entrants are already handling billions in daily volume with near-instant settlement and (in many cases) growing transparency.
Lawmakers on the anti-CBDC side often point to stablecoins as proof we don’t need a government digital dollar. The market is innovating faster than any central bank ever could. Why build a surveillance-prone system when private alternatives already exist?
Of course, stablecoins come with their own regulatory battles—reserve transparency, redemption guarantees, illicit finance risks—but many Republicans seem willing to tackle those issues separately rather than hand the keys to the Fed.
Where Things Stand Right Now
As of December 10, 2025, the House Rules Committee is meeting to decide the fate of Self’s amendment. If it makes it to the floor and passes, the Senate would still need to agree—or the whole NDAA could blow up in conference committee.
Either way, this fight is revealing something bigger. The crypto community and privacy advocates have built real political muscle. What used to be fringe libertarian talking points are now mainstream Republican orthodoxy.
Whether the amendment survives or not, the message is clear: a federally controlled digital dollar faces fierce opposition that isn’t going away anytime soon.
What Happens If the Ban Passes?
- The Fed’s remaining CBDC research programs would be defunded and shut down.
- Future administrations would need Congress to explicitly repeal the ban—a much higher bar than an executive order.
- Private stablecoin issuers would likely see an even friendlier regulatory environment.
- The U.S. would officially cede the CBDC race to China, Europe, and others—at least for now.
Some will cheer that last point. Others will see it as America falling behind. Reasonable people can disagree.
But one thing feels certain: the debate over who controls the future of money is only getting started. And for the first time in a long time, the momentum might actually be on the side of decentralization.
Keep your eyes on the NDAA vote. It might just decide whether your money stays yours.
