Yesterday, I published the article “It Finally Happened: Digital Currency Act is Now Law in US“, repeating claims that a new piece of legislation had taken effect and fundamentally altered financial privacy in the United States. Those claims were drawn from reports circulating across multiple alternative media outlets that are generally regarded as credible.
In publishing that article, I did not independently verify the existence of a specific bill number, legislative text, or official Congressional or White House documentation. Given the scale and seriousness of the claim, that was a lapse in judgment. I am normally more rigorous when assessing developments of this magnitude, and in this case I placed too much trust in reporting from neighbouring publications rather than confirming the primary sources myself. For that, I owe readers a clear apology.
Concerns about central bank digital currencies and financial surveillance are not new here. We have covered them consistently and at length, often well ahead of mainstream reporting. Because of that context, the claim that a digital currency law had quietly taken effect appeared plausible and aligned with a trajectory we have long outlined. However, further examination of public records shows that the specific “Digital Currency Modernization Act” described in those reports does not exist in Congress.gov, in White House releases, or in official legislative archives.
This was a rare error on my part, driven by repetition across multiple outlets rather than by primary evidence. I regret the oversight and take responsibility for it. That said, the correction does not invalidate the broader issue we have been reporting on, nor does it diminish the importance of scrutinising financial centralisation and digital currency policy.
You can continue to rely on this publication for independent, critical reporting, including on subjects that receive limited or selective coverage elsewhere. In this case, we trusted alternative sources too readily, and that standard will be tightened going forward.
Below is a clear, fully sourced overview of where the United States currently stands on digital currency and financial control, based on verifiable information rather than viral claims.
So, What’s Really Happening With Digital Currency in the US?
Although the specific legislation I previously reported does not exist in the form described, it would be inaccurate to conclude that concerns about digital currency and financial control are misplaced. The United States is steadily developing the technical, regulatory, and institutional foundations required for a far more centralised financial system, even if the final legal step has not yet been taken.
The error lay in assuming that this process had already been completed, rather than recognising that it is still unfolding through incremental and less visible measures.
Federal Reserve Has Already Laid the Digital Groundwork
The Federal Reserve has spent several years researching central bank digital currencies and has publicly acknowledged their potential role in the future monetary system. Its discussion paper, Money and Payments: The U.S. Dollar in the Age of Digital Transformation, outlines multiple models for a digital dollar that could be held by individuals and businesses, either directly or through intermediaries.
The paper makes clear that such systems would involve a significantly higher degree of transaction visibility than physical cash. While privacy protections are discussed, they are framed as design choices rather than inherent features. This reflects a broader reality: the capacity for enhanced financial oversight is built into digital currency architecture.
In parallel, the Federal Reserve has participated in pilot programmes such as Project Hamilton, which tested the feasibility of processing large transaction volumes using a digital dollar framework. These initiatives demonstrate operational readiness, even in the absence of formal authorisation to deploy a retail digital currency.
Legislative Division and Political Reality
Congress has not reached a consensus on digital currency, but it has not dismissed the concept either. Instead, it remains deeply divided. Some lawmakers have introduced bills (such as the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act) explicitly designed to prevent the issuance of a retail central bank digital currency, citing concerns about surveillance and government overreach. The existence of such legislation indicates that the prospect of a CBDC is considered realistic within policy circles.
At the same time, other legislative efforts focus on expanding regulatory oversight of digital assets, modernising payment infrastructure, and integrating blockchain-based systems into existing financial frameworks, such as the GENIUS Act. These initiatives move the financial system further toward digital-only mechanisms, regardless of whether they culminate in a formal CBDC.
The result is not a rejection of digital money, but an unresolved struggle over how much control the state should exercise over it.
Expansion of Financial Surveillance Without a CBDC
Even without a central bank digital currency, financial surveillance in the United States has expanded substantially. Agencies such as the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network require extensive reporting from banks, payment processors, and digital asset platforms. Broad definitions of suspicious activity place institutions under pressure to report a wide range of lawful behaviour.
The Internal Revenue Service has similarly expanded reporting requirements for third-party payment platforms and digital transactions. These systems already enable detailed monitoring of economic activity, often without individuals being fully aware of the extent of data collection involved, which can be found in more detail here. This page explains how payment apps and third-party settlement organisations are required to report transaction data to the IRS, reflecting the expansion of digital transaction monitoring.
A CBDC would not create financial surveillance where none exists. It would consolidate existing mechanisms into a single, more efficient structure.
Programmable Money as an Established Policy Concept
The concept of programmable money is well established in central banking discourse. Institutions such as the Bank for International Settlements have published extensive research on conditional payments, targeted monetary policy tools, and programmable transaction features. One example is “CBDCs: an opportunity for the monetary system“.
Central banks in multiple jurisdictions have examined options such as expiration dates on stimulus payments, spending restrictions tied to policy objectives, and differentiated interest rates based on usage patterns. These discussions are framed in technical and economic terms, but they carry clear implications for personal autonomy and financial freedom.
The technology required to implement such controls already exists, and the policy rationale for using it has been articulated repeatedly.
Stablecoins and Normalising Digital-Only Money
Recent legislation regulating stablecoins represents another step toward a fully digital financial ecosystem. Stablecoins, while distinct from central bank digital currencies, familiarise users with wallet-based transactions, constant traceability, and software-mediated money.
By bringing stablecoins under formal regulatory oversight, policymakers are reinforcing the idea that digital-only currency is not an exception but an expected component of the modern financial system. This process reduces the psychological and practical barriers to more comprehensive digital currency adoption in the future.
Why the Concern Remains Real
The reason the viral narrative gained traction is that it aligned closely with observable trends. Cash usage continues to decline, digital identity requirements are expanding, transaction reporting thresholds have been lowered over time, and central banks openly discuss the benefits of programmable money.
In that context, a claim that a decisive legal shift had already occurred appeared plausible. The broader trajectory remains unchanged, even though the specific claim was incorrect.
A More Accurate Conclusion
The United States has not yet implemented a retail central bank digital currency, nor has it eliminated cash through covert legislation. That distinction matters and has been corrected.
However, the underlying movement toward increased financial centralisation, transaction visibility, and policy-driven control remains evident. These changes are occurring gradually, through research initiatives, regulatory expansion, and incremental legislative action rather than a single dramatic event.
The appropriate response is neither panic nor complacency, but sustained scrutiny. Digital currency remains an active policy objective, and its eventual implementation, if it occurs, is likely to be presented as a continuation of existing systems rather than a radical departure from them.
The Expose Urgently Needs Your Help…
Can you please help to keep the lights on with The Expose’s honest, reliable, powerful and truthful journalism?
Your Government & Big Tech organisations
try to silence & shut down The Expose.
So we need your help to ensure
we can continue to bring you the
facts the mainstream refuses to.
The government does not fund us
to publish lies and propaganda on their
behalf like the Mainstream Media.
Instead, we rely solely on your support. So
please support us in our efforts to bring
you honest, reliable, investigative journalism
today. It’s secure, quick and easy.
Please choose your preferred method below to show your support.
Categories: Breaking News, US News