美国CBDC禁令自动生效，特朗普未签署

The most consequential monetary rule in a generation just became law and President Trump never even signed it. On July 11th, 2026, at the stroke of midnight, Washington permanently slammed the door on a Federal Reserve digital dollar or central bank digital currency. [music] There was no signing ceremony. In fact, there was no signature at all. It was buried inside a housing bill while Trump sat on his hands over a completely unrelated fight about voter ID.

But 10 days of silence and it became law automatically. [music] The United States government just voluntarily walked away from the single most powerful financial tool it could ever build. But that doesn't happen so easily. So the question is, who actually wanted it dead? And why did the state just give up that much power on purpose? In this video, we're going to show you how a monetary law passed with no signature, who really gained as a result, and why America appears to have just disarmed itself in a global currency war.

My name is Louis, and you're watching the Coin Bureau. Now, let's start with a very brief lesson on the Constitution. I promise I won't get too deep into the weeds here, but this is as important as is it is strange. Under Article 1, section 7 of the Constitution, if a president neither signs nor vetos a bill within 10 days while Congress is still in session, the thing just becomes law on its own. In the simplest terms, silence in this scenario essentially equals a yes.

But the timeline is really quite something. The Senate passed the 21st Century Road to Housing Act 85 to5. The House passed it 358 to 32. Then on June 24th, Trump abruptly cancelled the signing ceremony. Speaker Mike Johnson formally sent it to the White House on June 29th, starting that 10-day clock, and Trump just let it run out. His actual words on Truth Social were that he would not sign the housing bill in protest because the Senate couldn't pass what he called the Save America Act.

He described the housing package as, and I quote, a yawn. The SAVE Act, for those unfamiliar, is a voter ID bill demanding documentary proof of citizenship to register to vote. The Senate had already rejected it 48 to 50 back on June 4th. So, Trump was holding a housing bill hostage to force through a voter ID law that was already dead. Why not just veto it, though? Because look at those margins. 85 to 5, 358 to 32. Those are veto proof numbers.

A veto would have been overridden in an afternoon, and picking that fight instead of the midterms simply wasn't worth it. As a result of all of that mess, the most sweeping monetary decision in decades slipped through as a side effect of a political negotiation about something else entirely. So, as you can imagine, that is precisely the kind of thing that vanishes in the news cycle, especially with everything else going on in the world right now.

And that's why you should join the Coin Bureau Telegram group where we flag out stuff like this the moment that it happens before the headlines catch up. It's completely free, so just follow the link in the description or scan the QR code that's on the screen so that you never miss a key bit of market moving news again. Now, right back to it. It might not surprise you to hear that this central bank digital currency or CBDC ban didn't start life in a housing bill.

It began as a standalone piece of legislation with a very deliberate name, the anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act. It was introduced by House Majority Whip Tom Emmer. And on July 17th, 2025, it passed the House on its own steam. But look at how it passed. 219 to 210. A near partyline vote, scraping over the finish line with 135 co-sponsors. Then it hit the Senate and well, it died. The classic pattern, popular enough to squeak through the House, dead on arrival in the Senate.

So, how do you resurrect a controversial surveillance bill that couldn't survive on its own? Well, you bolted onto something that nobody dares vote against. Enter the Road to Housing Act, a 374 page monster described as the most comprehensive housing reform in the last 30 years. 50 plus banking and housing provisions, bipartisan fingerprints all over it, built during a housing affordability crisis with a shortage of millions of homes.

It even banned big institutional investors from hoovering up single family homes, policy both Warren and Trump had separately backed. In other words, it was politically untouchable. Nobody wants to be the lawmaker who voted against cheaper homes on camera. And that's the idea. A CBDC ban that limped through the House 219 to 210 now rode inside a vehicle that passed 85 to 5. The surveillance ban survived by attaching itself onto a bill nobody could afford to kill.

Now, before we can go any further, it's worth looking at exactly what was banned here because CBDC gets thrown around like everyone knows what it means. Well, as previously stated, CBDC stands for central bank digital currency. But the key word there is central. Right now, the money in your bank account is a liability of a private commercial bank like Chase or Wells Fargo. A CBDC changes that. It would be a direct liability of the Federal Reserve itself.

That means that you would hold a claim on the central bank, not on your high street bank. And that has three big consequences. First, direct accounts. citizens could theoretically hold money straight at the Fed, bypassing commercial banks entirely. Second, programmability. And this is the scary one. You can code conditions directly into the money. That translates to things like balances which expire if you don't spend them or funds restricted to certain shops or certain categories.

Money with rules hardwired in, that's pretty grim. And third, traceability. A centralized ledger giving the central bank a potential real-time view of every single transaction that you make. Tom Emmer called it giving the government a god's eyee view of your financial life. CFTC chairman Mike Celig said that a CBDC will never be introduced under our administration. The new Fed chair Kevin Walsh sworn in dismay called a retail CBDC a bad policy choice. and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant said it would enable a financial police state.

So the official justification was loud and clear. This was about stopping a surveillance state. And that argument resonated right across the political spectrum. Left and right for once, agreeing that programmable traceable government money is a nightmare. Hold on to that framing though because we're going to come back to the irony of the state killing this in the name of freedom. But first, let's follow the power. For all the talk of freedom, it certainly isn't the only element here.

Because the people who hated a CBDC most were the commercial banks. Consider what a direct Fed digital dollar does to their business model. If ordinary people can hold accounts directly at the central bank, they don't really need Chase. They don't need Bank of America. And that's a crucial bit of detail because those bank deposits are the raw material that banks use to make loans. Mortgages, business loans, credit cards, all of it is built on your deposits.

If citizens start moving their savings out of commercial banks and straight into the Fed, commercial banks are well pretty screwed. And that's with all else equal. While times are relatively good, it would get way worse in a crisis. In a bank panic, a CBDC would offer a frictionless instant flight to safety straight into the central bank that would trigger bank runs faster and harder than anything that we have today.

So, who actually lobbied against a Fed digital dollar? The American Bankers Association, the Bank Policy Institute, the Independent Community Bankers of America, the most powerful banking trade groups in Washington, arguing that a digital dollar would drain deposits from local banks and choke off credit creation. But that's not all. The housing bill that killed the CBDC also handed the banks a stack of unrelated wins.

Section

原文超出正文长度上限，此处截断——上游还有内容，完整版见上方「原文 ↗」。