The U.S. Senate has frozen the digital dollar until 2030: an analysis of the causes and consequences
The U.S. Senate has made a landmark decision by including an amendment in the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act that imposes a direct ban on the issuance of a digital dollar (CBDC) by the Federal Reserve until 2030. The vote was nearly unanimous: 85 in favor and 5 against. The bill now awaits approval in the House of Representatives and the signature of President Donald Trump. This is not merely a bureaucratic delay, but a clear political signal.
Political Underpinnings and Arguments Against
The ban on CBDC, embedded within the housing bill, is a tactical move by Republicans to expedite the adoption of the measure. The amendment categorically prohibits the Fed not only from issuing a digital currency but also from creating any digital assets "substantially similar to a CBDC," whether directly or through intermediaries. Notably, at the time of the law's passage, the Fed was not actively developing a digital dollar. Thus, lawmakers are acting preemptively, solidifying the course set by Trump as early as January 2025, when he called CBDC a threat to "the stability of the financial system, the privacy of citizens, and U.S. sovereignty."
The key objection is not against the technology itself, but against the model of state control. As noted by Alexander Peresichan, CEO of "Technobit," direct issuance of a digital dollar by the Fed would give the state the technical capability to access all transactions in real time. This is precisely why Trump's supporters view CBDC as a potential tool for financial surveillance, citing the Chinese e-CNY model as an example, where control over money flows is maximal. Meanwhile, private stablecoins, according to him, are not a substitute: "Stablecoins like USDT remain a private market instrument, whereas CBDC is part of the monetary system and a tool for controlling money circulation."
Economic Argument: Protecting the Banking System
Beyond privacy concerns, there is a structural risk: if citizens gain the ability to hold funds directly in Fed wallets, it could trigger a massive outflow of deposits from commercial banks. This is precisely why, as emphasized by Igor Plotnikov, Executive Director of Millpay, the Trump administration is betting on private dollar-backed 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 — Jerome Powell and his successor Kevin Warsh, who called CBDC a "mistaken policy decision" — have consistently opposed the digital dollar.
Global Context: China and Europe Forge Their Own Path
While the U.S. blocks a state-issued digital currency, other players are actively scaling their projects. China's e-CNY is showing impressive figures: by November 2025, payment volume reached 16.7 trillion yuan ($2.37 trillion) across 3.48 billion transactions. The number of personal wallets exceeded 230 million. Moreover, starting 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. Lu Lei, Deputy Governor of the People's Bank of China, explicitly called this model an alternative to stablecoins, eliminating the outflow of funds from banks.
The European Central Bank is also not standing still: the preparatory phase for the digital euro is complete, pilot testing is scheduled for the second half of 2027, and a full-scale launch is planned for 2029. As previously explained by ECB Executive Board member Piero Cipollone, creating a European digital payment system is a fight for the region's sovereignty.
My Analysis: The ban on CBDC in the U.S. is not a sign of weakness but a deliberate choice of model. Instead of centralized state control, Washington is betting on private innovative infrastructure (stablecoins), which may offer the market more flexibility but creates risks of fragmentation. At the same time, China and the EU are using CBDC as a tool for monetary sovereignty. In the long term, this "divergence in approaches" could lead to the formation of two parallel digital financial systems, and the speed of adaptation by the private sector in the U.S. will be the decisive factor.