U.S. Lawmakers Sound Alarm: Why Bitcoin's Permissionless Vision Clashes With Emerging Financial Regulations

The tension between decentralized money and government control is intensifying on Capitol Hill. Cryptocurrency advocate Warren Davidson, who has championed permissionless finance since his 2016 election to Congress, is raising critical alarms about the trajectory of American financial legislation—specifically targeting the GENIUS Act and its implications for digital currency policy.

The GENIUS Act and the CBDC Threat

Davidson’s primary concern centers on how the GENIUS Act, ostensibly focused on stablecoin regulation, could inadvertently create the infrastructure for a central bank digital currency (CBDC). In his view, this represents a fundamental betrayal of Bitcoin’s core promise: a peer-to-peer payment system free from intermediaries and government gatekeeping. He warns that such a framework opens the door to unprecedented financial surveillance and state-controlled access to personal funds.

The Ohio representative contends that a wholesale CBDC model would enable authorities to monitor transactions in real-time, freeze accounts at will, and require citizens to obtain government permission before accessing their own money. This digital ID requirement—a prerequisite for CBDC functionality—transforms financial access from a right into a privilege.

A Bipartisan Concern

Davidson is not alone in his apprehension. Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has similarly opposed the GENIUS Act, arguing it consolidates excessive banking power while paving the way for CBDC implementation and the erosion of self-custody rights. Both lawmakers recognize a troubling precedent: legislation framed as consumer protection can become the legal scaffold for authoritarian financial controls.

The CLARITY Act as a Partial Remedy

Davidson points to the CLARITY Act, awaiting Senate passage with expected review in early 2026, as a corrective measure. This alternative legislation prioritizes self-custody protections and incorporates provisions designed to limit state authority over cryptocurrency holdings. However, Davidson expresses guarded skepticism—with the GENIUS Act already operational, any freedoms restored by CLARITY may prove largely cosmetic.

The Larger Philosophical Battle

Beyond legislative specifics, Davidson frames this as an existential choice about monetary systems themselves. A surveilled, permissioned financial architecture ultimately debases economic liberty and concentrates power. Without decisive action to protect Bitcoin’s original ethos of permissionless access, the future of money risks becoming a tool of control rather than freedom.

The debate crystallizes a core crypto principle: whether digital assets can remain truly decentralized, or whether regulatory capture will inevitably subordinate them to state interests.