The CBDC Ban in the US: A Strategic Maneuver or a Missed Opportunity?
The U.S. Senate approved a bill that introduces a temporary ban on the issuance of a digital dollar (CBDC) by the Federal Reserve until 2030. The decision was made by an overwhelming majority — 85 votes in favor and five against. However, the document still needs to pass through the House of Representatives and receive the signature of President Donald Trump. This is not just a bureaucratic procedure, but a clear political signal.
Political Engineering and Context
The ban on CBDC was embedded in the affordable housing bill — the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act. This unconventional legislative maneuver allows Republicans to push the norm through, bypassing lengthy procedures. The amendment directly prohibits the Fed from "issuing or creating a central bank digital currency or any digital asset substantially similar to a CBDC," both directly and through financial intermediaries. Notably, at the time of the law's adoption, the Fed was not conducting any practical work on the digital dollar. The initiative merely codifies at the legislative level the course outlined by Trump back in January 2025, when he signed an executive order calling CBDC a threat to "the stability of the financial system, the privacy of citizens, and U.S. sovereignty."
The Main Objection Is Not Technology, but Control
The key argument of opponents is not the idea of digital money itself, but the architecture of state control. If the Fed issues a digital dollar directly, the state technically gains access to all transactions in real time. This is why Trump's supporters view CBDC not as a new form of the dollar, but as a potential tool for financial surveillance. The Chinese e-CNY model is often cited as an example, where the state has much broader capabilities to control cash flows. Meanwhile, private stablecoins like USDT remain instruments of the private market, whereas CBDC is part of the monetary system and a tool for controlling money circulation. They solve different problems.
The Economic Argument: Betting on Private Stablecoins
Beyond privacy concerns, CBDC opponents have a structural argument: if citizens can store money directly in Fed digital wallets, some deposits will leave commercial banks. This is why the Trump administration is betting on private dollar stablecoins. This approach allows maintaining the dollar's dominance in the digital economy without a radical overhaul of the existing financial system. Both Fed chairs have also consistently opposed the digital dollar. Jerome Powell stated that even if a CBDC were launched, management would be delegated to commercial banks, and his successor Kevin Warsh called the digital dollar a "mistaken policy decision."
Global Context: China and the EU Are Not Waiting
While the U.S. imposes a moratorium, other countries are actively scaling their projects. By November 2025, the volume of payments in China's e-CNY reached 16.7 trillion yuan ($2.37 trillion), with 3.48 billion transactions processed and 230 million personal wallets. In June 2026, the People's Bank of China connected 26 banks from Singapore, Thailand, the UAE, Qatar, Brazil, and other countries to the CBETS cross-border system. If current integration rates continue, CBETS could form a partial functional alternative to SWIFT in certain corridors within five years — primarily in settlements between countries interested in reducing dependence on dollar infrastructure.
From January 1, 2026, e-CNY transitioned to version 2.0, where retail balances became liabilities of commercial banks, allowing them to be used for fractional reserve and lending. Major state-owned banks are already accruing interest at demand deposit rates. The European Central Bank, in turn, completed the preparatory phase of the digital euro, planning pilot testing for the second half of 2027 and a full-scale launch by 2029.
My Analysis: Strategy or Self-Isolation?
The CBDC ban in the U.S. is neither a weakening nor a direct strengthening of the dollar's position. It is a fixation of differing approaches: the U.S. is betting on private innovative infrastructure, while China and the EU are developing centralized models with a high level of state control. However, in my view, the temporary moratorium could turn out to be a strategic mistake. While American lawmakers debate privacy, competitors are actively building the infrastructure of the future. If in five years the U.S. decides to return to the idea of a CBDC, it will have to catch up with a train that has long since left the station.