Robert F. Kennedy Jr., a newly-announced 2024 U.S. presidential candidate, has expressed concern over the Federal Reserve’s (Fed) upcoming launch of its “FedNow” Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC), which is set to be introduced in July.
In a Wednesday tweet, he claimed that CBDCs pose a serious threat to individual privacy and personal freedoms.
“The Fed just announced it will introduce its ‘FedNow’ Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC) in July. CBDCs grease the slippery slope to financial slavery and political tyranny,” he said.
Kennedy Jr. argues that CBDCs would allow the government to surveil all financial transactions, removing the anonymity provided by cash transactions.
He also suggests that the central bank could impose limits on transactions, dictating where and when individuals can spend their money.
“While cash transactions are anonymous, a #CBDC will allow the government to surveil all our private financial affairs,” he explained in the tweet. “The central bank will have the power to enforce dollar limits on our transactions restricting where you can send money, where you can spend it, and when money expires.”
“A CBDC tied to digital ID and social credit score will allow the government to freeze your assets or limit your spending to approved vendors if you fail to comply with arbitrary diktats, i.e. vaccine mandates,” Kennedy Jr. went on to say.
The Democrat presidential contender also warned that the Fed’s initial plans to limit the use of CBDCs to interbank transactions should not be viewed as a guarantee against the eventual banning and seizing of other digital currencies, such as Bitcoin, as the U.S. Treasury did with gold in 1933.
RFK Jr. suggests that the current global pandemic and banking crisis could be used as an opportunity for governments to introduce CBDCs, as a perceived safe haven against “germ-laden paper currencies” and as protection against bank runs.
“We should not be blind to the obvious danger that this is the first step in banning and seizing bitcoin,” Kennedy Jr. tweeted, linking to a CNBC article on the issue.
Kennedy Jr.’s comments reflect a growing concern among some members of the public and policymakers about the potential risks posed by CBDCs, particularly with regard to individual privacy and government overreach.
His warning is timely, given that Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa (BRICS) are working on a common currency in an attempt to abandon the U.S. dollar and push back against American dominance, as explained by Firstpost.
RFK Jr.’s notice suggests that the introduction of CBDCs could be used as a tool for governments to exert greater control over their citizens and to gain a competitive advantage in the global currency landscape.
If CBDCs become the norm, it is possible that other countries will follow suit, raising significant implications for the global financial system.
The concerns raised by RFK Jr. highlight the need for policymakers to carefully consider the potential risks and benefits of CBDCs before implementing them.
In March, South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem (R) blocked state House Bill 1193, legislation that would have redefined the definition of money to exclude digital currencies like Bitcoin and amended her state’s Uniform Commercial Code to recognize Central Banking Digital Currencies (CBDC) as money.
“By expressly excluding cryptocurrencies as money, it would become more difficult to use cryptocurrency. By needlessly limiting this freedom, HB 1193 would put South Dakota citizens at a business disadvantage,” Governor Noem wrote in a press release.
“At this moment in time, such a government-backed electronic currency has not been created. It would be imprudent to create regulations governing something that does not yet exist. More importantly, South Dakota should not open the door to a potential future overreach by the federal government.”
In an interview with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson, Noem called CBDCs a “threat to our freedom” and indicated her state is the only one in the U.S. taking a stand against the government’s efforts to install such a financial system.
“It is clearly putting power into the hands of government,” she said.
Other critics of centralized Federal currencies, so-called “Fedcoins,” argue in favor of a decentralized approach to digital currencies.
Decentralized monitary applications “typically offer more transparency and stability compared to opaque, centralized institutions like FTX,” writes Gabriella Hoffman for Independent Women’s Forum. Centralized systems are “designed to confuse customers about the risks they take when transferring assets between platforms. The attractive deals centralized platforms supposedly offer are too good to be true as they are inherently risky and unstable.”
Unlike centralized exchanges, decentralized blockchain technology “will prevent future instances of abuse without a whole-of-government approach” and are “more trustworthy and secure with crypto transactions since they lack a centralized authority,” she argues. “Due to this, the blockchain structure’s uses can extend beyond cryptocurrencies to voting and healthcare, for example.”
“Lawmakers would be wise to view Bitcoin like our nation: 50 unique states bound together by cooperative federalism,” Hoffman says.
