[00:00] The most consequential monetary rule in a&nbsp; generation just became law and President&nbsp;&nbsp; Trump never even signed it. On July&nbsp; 11th, 2026, at the stroke of midnight,&nbsp;&nbsp; Washington permanently slammed the door on a&nbsp; Federal Reserve digital dollar or central bank&nbsp;&nbsp;
[00:16] digital currency. [music] There was no signing&nbsp; ceremony. In fact, there was no signature at all.&nbsp;&nbsp; It was buried inside a housing bill while Trump&nbsp; sat on his hands over a completely unrelated&nbsp;&nbsp; fight about voter ID. But 10 days of silence&nbsp; and it became law automatically. [music] The&nbsp;&nbsp;
[00:33] United States government just voluntarily walked&nbsp; away from the single most powerful financial tool&nbsp;&nbsp; it could ever build. But that doesn't happen so&nbsp; easily. So the question is, who actually wanted&nbsp;&nbsp;
[00:45] it dead? And why did the state just give up that&nbsp; much power on purpose? In this video, we're going&nbsp;&nbsp; to show you how a monetary law passed with no&nbsp; signature, who really gained as a result, and why&nbsp;&nbsp;
[00:57] America appears to have just disarmed itself in a&nbsp; global currency war. My name is Louis, and you're&nbsp;&nbsp; watching the Coin Bureau. Now, let's start with a&nbsp; very brief lesson on the Constitution. I promise&nbsp;&nbsp;
[01:09] I won't get too deep into the weeds here, but this&nbsp; is as important as is it is strange. Under Article&nbsp;&nbsp; 1, section 7 of the Constitution, if a president&nbsp; neither signs nor vetos a bill within 10 days&nbsp;&nbsp;
[01:21] while Congress is still in session, the thing just&nbsp; becomes law on its own. In the simplest terms,&nbsp;&nbsp; silence in this scenario essentially equals a yes.&nbsp; But the timeline is really quite something. The&nbsp;&nbsp;
[01:33] Senate passed the 21st Century Road to Housing&nbsp; Act 85 to5. The House passed it 358 to 32.&nbsp;&nbsp; Then on June 24th, Trump abruptly cancelled the&nbsp; signing ceremony. Speaker Mike Johnson formally&nbsp;&nbsp;
[01:48] sent it to the White House on June 29th, starting&nbsp; that 10-day clock, and Trump just let it run out.&nbsp;&nbsp; His actual words on Truth Social were that he&nbsp; would not sign the housing bill in protest because&nbsp;&nbsp;
[02:00] the Senate couldn't pass what he called the Save&nbsp; America Act. He described the housing package as,&nbsp;&nbsp; and I quote, a yawn. The SAVE Act, for those&nbsp; unfamiliar, is a voter ID bill demanding&nbsp;&nbsp;
[02:12] documentary proof of citizenship to register&nbsp; to vote. The Senate had already rejected it 48&nbsp;&nbsp; to 50 back on June 4th. So, Trump was holding a&nbsp; housing bill hostage to force through a voter ID&nbsp;&nbsp;
[02:25] law that was already dead. Why not just veto it,&nbsp; though? Because look at those margins. 85 to 5,&nbsp;&nbsp; 358 to 32. Those are veto proof numbers. A veto&nbsp; would have been overridden in an afternoon, and&nbsp;&nbsp;
[02:39] picking that fight instead of the midterms simply&nbsp; wasn't worth it. As a result of all of that mess,&nbsp;&nbsp; the most sweeping monetary decision in decades&nbsp; slipped through as a side effect of a political&nbsp;&nbsp;
[02:51] negotiation about something else entirely. So,&nbsp; as you can imagine, that is precisely the kind of&nbsp;&nbsp; thing that vanishes in the news cycle, especially&nbsp; with everything else going on in the world right&nbsp;&nbsp; now. And that's why you should join the Coin&nbsp; Bureau Telegram group where we flag out stuff&nbsp;&nbsp;
[03:06] like this the moment that it happens before the&nbsp; headlines catch up. It's completely free, so just&nbsp;&nbsp; follow the link in the description or scan the QR&nbsp; code that's on the screen so that you never miss&nbsp;&nbsp; a key bit of market moving news again. Now, right&nbsp; back to it. It might not surprise you to hear that&nbsp;&nbsp;
[03:22] this central bank digital currency or CBDC ban&nbsp; didn't start life in a housing bill. It began&nbsp;&nbsp; as a standalone piece of legislation with a very&nbsp; deliberate name, the anti-CBDC Surveillance State&nbsp;&nbsp;
[03:36] Act. It was introduced by House Majority Whip Tom&nbsp; Emmer. And on July 17th, 2025, it passed the House&nbsp;&nbsp; on its own steam. But look at how it passed. 219&nbsp; to 210. A near partyline vote, scraping over the&nbsp;&nbsp;
[03:52] finish line with 135 co-sponsors. Then it hit the&nbsp; Senate and well, it died. The classic pattern,&nbsp;&nbsp; popular enough to squeak through the House,&nbsp; dead on arrival in the Senate. So, how do you&nbsp;&nbsp;
[04:05] resurrect a controversial surveillance bill that&nbsp; couldn't survive on its own? Well, you bolted&nbsp;&nbsp; onto something that nobody dares vote against.&nbsp; Enter the Road to Housing Act, a 374 page monster&nbsp;&nbsp;
[04:18] described as the most comprehensive housing reform&nbsp; in the last 30 years. 50 plus banking and housing&nbsp;&nbsp; provisions, bipartisan fingerprints all over it,&nbsp; built during a housing affordability crisis with&nbsp;&nbsp;
[04:31] a shortage of millions of homes. It even banned&nbsp; big institutional investors from hoovering up&nbsp;&nbsp; single family homes, policy both Warren and&nbsp; Trump had separately backed. In other words,&nbsp;&nbsp; it was politically untouchable. Nobody wants&nbsp; to be the lawmaker who voted against cheaper&nbsp;&nbsp;
[04:47] homes on camera. And that's the idea. A CBDC&nbsp; ban that limped through the House 219 to 210&nbsp;&nbsp; now rode inside a vehicle that passed 85 to 5. The&nbsp; surveillance ban survived by attaching itself onto&nbsp;&nbsp;
[05:02] a bill nobody could afford to kill. Now, before we&nbsp; can go any further, it's worth looking at exactly&nbsp;&nbsp; what was banned here because CBDC gets thrown&nbsp; around like everyone knows what it means. Well,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[05:15] as previously stated, CBDC stands for central&nbsp; bank digital currency. But the key word there&nbsp;&nbsp; is central. Right now, the money in your&nbsp; bank account is a liability of a private&nbsp;&nbsp; commercial bank like Chase or Wells Fargo. A CBDC&nbsp; changes that. It would be a direct liability of&nbsp;&nbsp;
[05:33] the Federal Reserve itself. That means that&nbsp; you would hold a claim on the central bank,&nbsp;&nbsp; not on your high street bank. And that has three&nbsp; big consequences. First, direct accounts. citizens&nbsp;&nbsp;
[05:46] could theoretically hold money straight at the&nbsp; Fed, bypassing commercial banks entirely. Second,&nbsp;&nbsp; programmability. And this is the scary one. You&nbsp; can code conditions directly into the money. That&nbsp;&nbsp;
[05:59] translates to things like balances which expire&nbsp; if you don't spend them or funds restricted to&nbsp;&nbsp; certain shops or certain categories. Money with&nbsp; rules hardwired in, that's pretty grim. And third,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[06:11] traceability. A centralized ledger giving the&nbsp; central bank a potential real-time view of&nbsp;&nbsp; every single transaction that you make. Tom Emmer&nbsp; called it giving the government a god's eyee view&nbsp;&nbsp; of your financial life. CFTC chairman Mike Celig&nbsp; said that a CBDC will never be introduced under&nbsp;&nbsp;
[06:29] our administration. The new Fed chair Kevin Walsh&nbsp; sworn in dismay called a retail CBDC a bad policy&nbsp;&nbsp; choice. and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant said&nbsp; it would enable a financial police state. So the&nbsp;&nbsp;
[06:44] official justification was loud and clear. This&nbsp; was about stopping a surveillance state. And that&nbsp;&nbsp; argument resonated right across the political&nbsp; spectrum. Left and right for once, agreeing&nbsp;&nbsp;
[06:56] that programmable traceable government money is a&nbsp; nightmare. Hold on to that framing though because&nbsp;&nbsp; we're going to come back to the irony of the state&nbsp; killing this in the name of freedom. But first,&nbsp;&nbsp; let's follow the power. For all the talk of&nbsp; freedom, it certainly isn't the only element&nbsp;&nbsp;
[07:12] here. Because the people who hated a CBDC most&nbsp; were the commercial banks. Consider what a direct&nbsp;&nbsp; Fed digital dollar does to their business model.&nbsp; If ordinary people can hold accounts directly at&nbsp;&nbsp; the central bank, they don't really need Chase.&nbsp; They don't need Bank of America. And that's a&nbsp;&nbsp;
[07:29] crucial bit of detail because those bank deposits&nbsp; are the raw material that banks use to make loans.&nbsp;&nbsp; Mortgages, business loans, credit cards, all of&nbsp; it is built on your deposits. If citizens start&nbsp;&nbsp;
[07:41] moving their savings out of commercial banks and&nbsp; straight into the Fed, commercial banks are well&nbsp;&nbsp; pretty screwed. And that's with all else equal.&nbsp; While times are relatively good, it would get way&nbsp;&nbsp;
[07:53] worse in a crisis. In a bank panic, a CBDC would&nbsp; offer a frictionless instant flight to safety&nbsp;&nbsp; straight into the central bank that would trigger&nbsp; bank runs faster and harder than anything that we&nbsp;&nbsp;
[08:05] have today. So, who actually lobbied against a Fed&nbsp; digital dollar? The American Bankers Association,&nbsp;&nbsp; the Bank Policy Institute, the Independent&nbsp; Community Bankers of America, the most powerful&nbsp;&nbsp;
[08:18] banking trade groups in Washington, arguing that&nbsp; a digital dollar would drain deposits from local&nbsp;&nbsp; banks and choke off credit creation. But that's&nbsp; not all. The housing bill that killed the CBDC&nbsp;&nbsp;
[08:30] also handed the banks a stack of unrelated wins.&nbsp; Section 203 raised the cap on bank public welfare&nbsp;&nbsp; investments from 15% to 20%. It streamlined bank&nbsp; exams for well-run institutions. It exempted&nbsp;&nbsp;
[08:43] certain custodial deposits at smaller banks from&nbsp; brokered deposit scrutiny. So inside one bill,&nbsp;&nbsp; the banks got an existential threat removed&nbsp; and a pile of regulatory sweeteners on top.&nbsp;&nbsp;
[08:56] The quote surveillance state was&nbsp; a nice narrative, but for banks,&nbsp;&nbsp; protecting their business model was undoubtedly&nbsp; the real reason for their opposition. But still,&nbsp;&nbsp; when all was said and done, Washington killed&nbsp; the digital dollar and any official line revolved&nbsp;&nbsp;
[09:10] around the idea of stopping a surveillance state.&nbsp; But that's a bit strange. No, a CBDC would have&nbsp;&nbsp; been the most powerful tool any government has&nbsp; ever held. Programmable money with transaction&nbsp;&nbsp;
[09:22] level visibility on every citizen, the ability to&nbsp; freeze funds, redirect them, or make them expire.&nbsp;&nbsp; And the state just gave that up voluntarily. The&nbsp; people who normally crave exactly that kind of&nbsp;&nbsp;
[09:34] power looked at it and walked away. Strange.&nbsp; But here's where it gets bigger than banks and&nbsp;&nbsp; bigger than surveillance. Because while America&nbsp; was busy killing its digital dollar, the rest&nbsp;&nbsp; of the world was building theirs. Starting with&nbsp; China. The digital one has already processed over&nbsp;&nbsp;
[09:52] 3.48 billion retail transactions totaling roughly&nbsp; 2.37 trillion, over 230 million personal wallets.&nbsp;&nbsp; This is well past the pilot stage live and running&nbsp; at scale today. But the real threat is crossborder&nbsp;&nbsp;
[10:08] platform called Mbridge linking China with Hong&nbsp; Kong, Thailand, the UAE and Saudi Arabia. It has&nbsp;&nbsp; seen $55 billion in transactions, roughly 95% of&nbsp; it settled in digital one. And those transactions&nbsp;&nbsp;
[10:22] settle in about 7 to 8 seconds versus 3 to&nbsp; 5 days for traditional correspondent banking&nbsp;&nbsp; at roughly 50 to 70% lower costs. It's built&nbsp; for one purpose, settling energy and commodity&nbsp;&nbsp;
[10:34] trades while bypassing Swift and the dollar&nbsp; entirely. Then we have Europe. On June 23rd,&nbsp;&nbsp; the European Parliament's economic committee&nbsp; approved the legal framework for a digital euro&nbsp;&nbsp;
[10:46] 43 to4. The pilot is targeted for mid2027 with&nbsp; first issuance possible by 2029. And the EU's&nbsp;&nbsp; rationale is that the digital euro is a defense&nbsp; against, in their words, US control of money,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[11:01] deepening a hedge against Visa, Mastercard, and&nbsp; American stable coins. Even Russia is launching&nbsp;&nbsp; a digital ruble this September. While China runs&nbsp; at scale, and Europe builds its own guard rails,&nbsp;&nbsp; America has frozen itself out until at least&nbsp; 2031. The US is the only major block voluntarily&nbsp;&nbsp;
[11:20] exiting this race. rather than negotiating its way&nbsp; through it. And not everyone thinks that that's&nbsp;&nbsp; smart. Former CFTC chair Timothy Msad warned the&nbsp; ban strips away tools for sanctions enforcement,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[11:32] crossber settlement, and financial inclusion.&nbsp; He says that tokenized money is becoming&nbsp;&nbsp; inevitable behind the scenes anyway, whatever the&nbsp; political rhetoric says. So, is America protecting&nbsp;&nbsp; individual freedom or is it unilaterally disarming&nbsp; in the next phase of a currency war? Well,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[11:50] it's time for a bit of a reality check on some&nbsp; numbers. The dollar still makes up around 58% of&nbsp;&nbsp; global reserves. The euro sits at 20%. The yuan,&nbsp; well, barely 2%. And the reason for that comes&nbsp;&nbsp;
[12:03] down to the rule of law, deep and liquid capital&nbsp; markets, and free convertability. Not much to do&nbsp;&nbsp; with any kind of digital infrastructure. China&nbsp; has none of the advantages that the dollar enjoys.&nbsp;&nbsp;
[12:16] Capital controls and shallow bond markets mean&nbsp; the yuan simply can't be a global safe haven.&nbsp;&nbsp; Even domestically, China's digital Juan&nbsp; is dwarfed by Alip Pay and WeChat Pay. So,&nbsp;&nbsp; the digital one is a payment tool, not yet a&nbsp; reserve currency threat. Its real danger is&nbsp;&nbsp;
[12:32] narrower, building alternative payment corridors&nbsp; that bypass Western Rails for specific trades,&nbsp;&nbsp; especially energy. Now, that's a considerable&nbsp; risk, but it's not the dollar collapsing. So,&nbsp;&nbsp;
[12:44] let's step back for a moment and consider all&nbsp; of this. The monetary law that nobody signed,&nbsp;&nbsp; buried inside a housing bill nobody dared oppose,&nbsp; is being sold to the public as a win for freedom.&nbsp;&nbsp;
[12:56] A law that also very conveniently protected&nbsp; the commercial banks from the one thing that&nbsp;&nbsp; could gut their business and pulled America out&nbsp; of the global digital currency race just as its&nbsp;&nbsp; rivals accelerated. You could choose to see that&nbsp; as principled restraint, a government refusing to&nbsp;&nbsp;
[13:12] establish a surveillance state. Or you could read&nbsp; it as a win for entrenched business interest with&nbsp;&nbsp; ulterior motives. In any case, the talk of freedom&nbsp; gave everyone cover. The banks secured their&nbsp;&nbsp; profit margins and the politicians got a housing&nbsp; win before the midterms and nobody had to answer&nbsp;&nbsp;
[13:28] for a monetary decision that reshapes the next 50&nbsp; years because it essentially just slipped its way&nbsp;&nbsp; through. The system just works. Well, that's&nbsp; all that we have time for today. But what do&nbsp;&nbsp; you think? Was this a case of US politicians&nbsp; showing that they care about freedom? Or was&nbsp;&nbsp;
[13:44] it all just some slick maneuvering from banks that&nbsp; wanted to protect their profits? Let us know your&nbsp;&nbsp; opinions in the comments below. And if you want&nbsp; to understand the private money future this ban&nbsp;&nbsp; just cleared the runway for, go check out our&nbsp; full video on stable coins right over here.&nbsp;&nbsp;
[14:00] Thank you all so much for watching and I'll see&nbsp; you again very soon. This is Lewis signing off.