Surveillance State Fears Drive Crypto Lawmakers to Split on Key Legislation

The clash over America’s financial future has reached a critical juncture, with cryptocurrency advocates in Congress drawing a stark line between two competing legislative approaches. At the center of this debate is the GENIUS Act, which has triggered alarm bells among lawmakers concerned about embedding surveillance mechanisms into the nation’s monetary system.

Warren Davidson, an Ohio Representative who has championed permissionless money and self-custody protections since 2016, has become the vocal opposition leader. His core criticism isn’t merely technical—it’s philosophical. Davidson argues that recent cryptocurrency legislation, particularly the GENIUS Act, betrays the foundational vision of Bitcoin as a peer-to-peer, permissionless payment system. He has repeatedly warned that this legislation could serve as a blueprint for implementing a wholesale U.S. dollar central bank digital currency (CBDC), a system he views as fundamentally incompatible with financial privacy.

The surveillance dimension cuts deeper than typical regulatory concerns. Davidson has flagged the potential emergence of mandatory digital ID systems that would require Americans to seek government authorization before accessing their own capital. This, combined with CBDC infrastructure, creates what he characterizes as the architecture for systemic control—allowing authorities unprecedented monitoring capabilities and coercive power over individual transactions.

His position reflects a broader ideological stance. Throughout his tenure, Davidson has introduced multiple legislative packages designed to constrain governmental authority over digital assets, including measures to criminalize CBDC implementation and past efforts to challenge regulatory leadership at agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene has aligned with this resistance, voting against the GENIUS Act on similar grounds. Greene’s objections center on the legislation granting excessive authority to financial institutions while simultaneously creating pathways toward CBDC adoption. Like Davidson, she emphasizes the dangers embedded in digital identification systems combined with central bank digital currencies—a combination she sees as threatening individual financial autonomy.

Both lawmakers have positioned themselves behind the CLARITY Act as the preferable alternative. Currently moving through the Senate with anticipated review in early 2026, this legislation promises to address what they view as the GENIUS Act’s critical shortcomings by explicitly protecting self-custody rights and incorporating additional consumer protections from House amendments.

Yet Davidson sounds a cautious note about what meaningful change this alternative might actually deliver. With the GENIUS Act already implemented, he suggests that protections offered by the CLARITY Act may prove largely cosmetic, unable to fully reverse the surveillance infrastructure already embedded in the system.

The underlying tension reveals competing visions for American financial infrastructure. One pathway leads toward a permissioned, monitored system where central authorities maintain visibility and control over money flows. The alternative preserves the founding cryptocurrency principle—a system where individuals maintain custody and privacy without requiring institutional or governmental permission. As these legislative battles unfold, they will ultimately determine whether the nation’s financial future remains aligned with principles of individual sovereignty or shifts toward centralized oversight.