Warren Davidson Warns on CBDC: Congress Fights to Prevent Digital Dollar in Defense Bill

Rep. Warren Davidson and other fiscal conservatives are raising alarms about the Federal Reserve’s potential digital currency plans. Their concerns have sparked a legislative push to block any CBDC development, with representatives introducing amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) aimed at preventing the government from issuing a central bank digital currency. This latest battle reflects growing fears that a government-controlled digital dollar could fundamentally reshape America’s financial privacy landscape.

The Missing Promise: GOP Leaders Retreat on CBDC Protections

When the NDAA was released, conservative lawmakers discovered a critical gap—the anti-CBDC provisions that GOP leaders had promised to include were nowhere to be found. Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) responded by introducing the “Anti-CBDC Surveillance State” amendment, which aims to prevent the Federal Reserve from developing, testing, or issuing a digital currency, while also barring direct financial services to individuals. Self’s move represents an effort to fulfill commitments that were apparently abandoned when the defense bill reached its final form. For lawmakers who fought for these protections, the omission felt like a betrayal of their efforts to safeguard Americans’ financial autonomy.

Warren Davidson’s Stark Warning: The Government Between You and Your Money

Rep. Warren Davidson has become one of the most vocal critics of CBDC proposals. His warning cuts to the heart of the concern: a digital dollar would “insert the government between you and your money.” This simple phrase captures what many conservatives see as the core threat—a financial system where every transaction could be monitored, restricted, or even prevented by government authorities. Davidson and his allies argue that such a system would enable unprecedented government control over individual spending habits, enabling authorities to limit what people purchase, when they purchase it, and how they use their own money.

The Surveillance and Control Dilemma

Beyond basic financial privacy, critics like Rep. Warren Davidson point to darker possibilities. A government-backed digital currency could be weaponized to impose spending restrictions on specific populations, track dissidents, or enforce financial compliance through forced transactions. The proposal to vest the Federal Reserve with such power troubles both libertarian-leaning conservatives and privacy advocates. Unlike temporary executive orders that could be reversed, supporters of Rep. Self’s amendment are demanding permanent legal restrictions—hard-coded protections against CBDC implementation. This reflects a deeper philosophical divide: those who believe financial systems should remain decentralized and citizen-controlled versus those who see centralized digital currencies as inevitable tools of modern governance.

The House Rules Committee Holds the Key

Rep. Self’s amendment now faces its critical test: review by the House Rules Committee. This body will determine whether the amendment reaches the full House floor for debate and a vote. Given the NDAA’s importance to national defense and its typical bipartisan support, the committee’s decision carries enormous weight. If the amendment advances, Congress will formally debate whether to ban the Federal Reserve from pursuing CBDC development. Rep. Self has made his expectations clear—he expects the committee to “do the right thing” by protecting citizens’ financial rights. The outcome will signal whether Congress is willing to take a definitive stand against digital currency infrastructure that could consolidate government power over money itself.

What’s at Stake

The debate surrounding Rep. Warren Davidson’s warnings and Rep. Self’s amendment reflects a fundamental question about the future of American finance. As digital currencies become technologically feasible, the question is no longer whether they can be created, but whether they should be—and who should control them. Lawmakers who share Warren Davidson’s concerns believe the answer is clear: neither the Federal Reserve nor any federal agency should have the power to create a system that could monitor, restrict, or control how Americans spend their money. The House Rules Committee’s decision will mark a pivotal moment in this increasingly urgent debate.