-
The recent approval of the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act (HR 1919) underscores the growing concern among U.S. lawmakers regarding privacy and central bank control over digital currencies.
-
This legislative move signifies a pivotal moment in the ongoing debate about the role of digital currencies and the potential for government overreach in financial transactions.
-
Rep. Tom Emmer emphasized, “Without cash-like privacy safeguards, CBDCs could grant federal authorities the power to monitor Americans’ transactions,” reflecting fears echoed by many advocates for financial privacy.
This article explores the implications of the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, highlighting congressional efforts to safeguard privacy amid a worldwide push for central bank digital currencies.
US Committee Pushes Back Against CBDCs with Surveillance Act
The passage of HR 1919 marks a significant step in Congress’s response to the rising interest in Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs). Introduced by GOP Majority Whip Tom Emmer, the bill was approved by the House Financial Services Committee with a narrow margin of 27 to 22.
The legislation is designed to prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a CBDC directly to individuals without clear authorization from Congress. This move is seen as a bid to protect individual freedoms and prevent the potential misuse of digital currencies for surveillance purposes.
Concerns Over Government Overreach in Digital Currency Development
During the committee discussion leading to the bill’s passage, Emmer articulated the dangers associated with government-controlled digital currencies. He stated that without the necessary privacy protections, CBDCs could evolve into a tool for financial surveillance by federal authorities.
“The Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act ensures that the United States digital currency policy is in the hands of the American people, not the administrative state,” Emmer asserted. His statement reflects a commitment to uphold American values, including privacy and individual sovereignty, in the face of increasing government scrutiny over financial transactions.
Representative Emmer drew parallels with international examples, highlighting China’s state-controlled CBDC aimed at tracking citizen spending. He also cautioned about possible implications of similar policies in democratic societies, referencing Canada’s actions during the trucker protests as a warning sign.
The Broader Context: Global Interest in CBDCs
The push against CBDCs in the U.S. emerges alongside significant global interest in digital currencies. As of early March 2025, 115 countries are actively exploring or developing their CBDC frameworks. Notably, 92 nations are still in the research phase, while 27 are working on proofs of concept, and 22 have initiated pilot programs.
Countries Exploring CBDCs. Source: CDBC Tracker
Despite the advancements in other countries, the U.S. remains cautious, emphasizing the need for safeguards against potential abuses of power that CBDCs may entail. As the landscape of digital currencies evolves, legislative decisions like HR 1919 illustrate a proactive attempt to balance innovation with the protection of individual rights.
Conclusion
The progression toward the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act signals a critical juncture in the U.S. approach to digital currencies. Lawmakers are actively seeking to shield Americans from potential governmental overreach associated with CBDCs. With the global narrative increasingly leaning toward the integration of digital currencies, the U.S. stance, as outlined in this bill, reflects a commitment to maintaining privacy, sovereignty, and a free market.
