Is the GENIUS Act a back door to an authoritarian digital dollar?

Chesnot / Contributor | Getty Images

“It’s a trap!”

Those three iconic words from Admiral Ackbar in Return of the Jedi have never felt more relevant. Except this time, the trap isn’t floating in deep space. It’s embedded in legislation quietly advancing through Congress. And unlike the Rebel Alliance, we don’t have cruisers standing by. We have our voices, our rights, and a limited opportunity to stop what could become one of the most dangerous financial transformations in modern history.

The GENIUS Act, short for the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act, is being promoted as a bipartisan step toward a more stable crypto landscape. But this bill could lay the foundation for a programmable digital currency. It would not be controlled by the people and would offer few real privacy protections. Instead, power could concentrate in a handful of elite financial institutions, operating under the heavy hand of government regulation and influence.

The Bait: Trust and Transparency

The GENIUS Act is pitched as a way to bring order and reliability to stablecoins. These blockchain-based digital tokens are tied to assets like the U.S. dollar. The bill provides a regulatory framework, requires full asset backing in dollars or Treasuries, and enforces anti-money laundering compliance.

Supporters call it a common-sense step forward. In reality, it would likely enable a tightly regulated network of private actors, deeply aligned with federal interests, to wield significant power over how digital dollars are used and accessed.

The Switch: A Digital Dollar in Disguise

If passed, the GENIUS Act could supercharge the stablecoin market. Currencies like USD Coin and Tether already have hundreds of billions in circulation. With the endorsement of Congress, that figure might rise to $2 trillion by 2028. Government analysts suggest half of that total could be invested in U.S. Treasuries. Citibank estimates the total could be $1.2 trillion by 2030. This would provide a powerful new stream of financing for Washington’s debt machine.

The bill mandates that stablecoins be backed by cash or government debt. Treasuries pay interest; cash does not. That financial reality creates an obvious incentive for stablecoin issuers to pour funds into Treasuries, deepening the federal government’s dependency on digital finance.

What we’re left with is a digital dollar in everything but name. It would be privately issued, publicly regulated, and deeply intertwined in government fiscal strategy.

Programmable Currency, Social Control

One of the most alarming features of this emerging system is programmability. Stablecoin developers would have the ability to encode conditions into the money itself. That includes restrictions on where, how, and by whom funds can be spent.

These controls wouldn’t be set by everyday users. They would be dictated by developers and institutions with global affiliations. Some of the top investors in stablecoins have already promoted the use of radical social credit scores, such as ESG. And while these institutions issuing stablecoins aren’t government officials, they often operate under regulatory pressure and in close alignment with the same bureaucratic agenda.

Do we really believe this power won’t be abused?

Privacy? Limited and Corporate

The GENIUS Act places stablecoin issuers under the Bank Secrecy Act. That requires certain financial disclosures and monitoring, though not necessarily full government access to individual transaction histories. The greater concern lies in what the companies themselves would know.

Under this regime, there are few privacy safeguards for consumers. The companies issuing stablecoins could track transactions, build profiles, and share information as needed to comply with government mandates—or, more troublingly, to serve political or social agendas.

Americans could wake up to find their purchases questioned, their behavior flagged, and their freedom to transact compromised. Not because Congress passed a law banning spending, but because a regulated corporation enforced a government-approved standard.

Wake Up, America

The GENIUS Act is not simply a measure to better regulate one part of the crypto industry. It could be the beginning of a new financial infrastructure designed to monitor, influence, and ultimately control the public.

This is how central bank digital currency might arrive in the United States. It might not come from the Federal Reserve, but through private issuers that are shaped, restrained, and quietly directed by federal regulators. These issuers are not elected. They are not accountable to you. Yet they could soon determine how your money functions.

The American people did not ask for this system. But if we fail to speak out now, we could soon be living in a financial world where compliance, not freedom, defines our economic rights.

This is not innovation. It is a digital snare, tightening with every page of this legislation. If we do not act, we may not get a second chance to stop it.

Glenn Beck is a nationally syndicated radio host and founder of Blaze Media. He is the author of multiple New York Times bestsellers and a passionate advocate for faith, freedom, and the Constitution. Justin Haskins is a New York Times bestselling author, senior fellow at The Heartland Institute, and president of the nonpartisan think tank Our Republic.

The DARK truth behind the Macrons' absurd lawsuit

WPA Pool / Pool | Getty Images

While the media obsesses over elite scandals, Glenn is having a field day exposing the Macron lawsuit farce—and the twisted truth it tries to bury.

The era of unchecked narratives is coming to an end. We're reclaiming reality, one scandal at a time.

On his show, Glenn couldn't hide his glee over French President Emmanuel Macron and his wife Brigitte suing Candace Owens for claiming she's really a man named Jean-Michel Trogneux. Glenn called Brigitte the "Jeffrey Epstein of France" for grooming a 15-year-old Emmanuel when she was his 40-year-old teacher, and speculated that she is pressuring her husband to silence the rumors. Glenn also mocked the blatant overkill, which included childhood photos, birth announcements, and a desperate proclamation that Brigitte is "a woman."

But it goes deeper: The liberal elites have long proclaimed that transitioning is "wonderful," so why sue over the insinuation? It's hypocrisy—elites demanding silence on grooming while forcing conformity. This isn't about truth; it's control, proving no one's above scrutiny.

Want to see the absurd lawsuit firsthand? Download the Macron v. Owens lawsuit PDF here and see the evidence for yourself.

Download the PDF here.

BREAKING: Top-secret 2020 House Intel report on Brennan's ICA revealed

Brooks Kraft / Contributor | Getty Images

The following oversight report from the House Intelligence Committee examines the Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) rushed out by the Obama administration before leaving office in January 2017.

This report has never been released to the public. Until now.

The House Intelligence Committee’s review began in 2017, shortly after the ICA’s release, and continued through 2020, paralleling a Senate Intelligence Committee investigation into Russia’s role in the 2016 election, which concluded in fall 2020.

Before its declassification by President Trump and public release by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard, this report was among the U.S. government’s most highly classified documents. Its sensitive level of compartmentation prohibited storage on top-secret computer networks. Only five physical copies existed, all secured in safes under strict protocols. This extreme classification suggests the Obama administration sought to prevent the public from learning the extent of its alleged deception.

Download the PDF here. 

Is the U.N. plotting to control 30% of U.S. land by 2030?

Bloomberg / Contributor | Getty Images

A reliable conservative senator faces cancellation for listening to voters. But the real threat to public lands comes from the last president’s backdoor globalist agenda.

Something ugly is unfolding on social media, and most people aren’t seeing it clearly. Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah) — one of the most constitutionally grounded conservatives in Washington — is under fire for a housing provision he first proposed in 2022.

You wouldn’t know that from scrolling through X. According to the latest online frenzy, Lee wants to sell off national parks, bulldoze public lands, gut hunting and fishing rights, and hand America’s wilderness to Amazon, BlackRock, and the Chinese Communist Party. None of that is true.

Lee’s bill would have protected against the massive land-grab that’s already under way — courtesy of the Biden administration.

I covered this last month. Since then, the backlash has grown into something like a political witch hunt — not just from the left but from the right. Even Donald Trump Jr., someone I typically agree with, has attacked Lee’s proposal. He’s not alone.

Time to look at the facts the media refuses to cover about Lee’s federal land plan.

What Lee actually proposed

Over the weekend, Lee announced that he would withdraw the federal land sale provision from his housing bill. He said the decision was in response to “a tremendous amount of misinformation — and in some cases, outright lies,” but also acknowledged that many Americans brought forward sincere, thoughtful concerns.

Because of the strict rules surrounding the budget reconciliation process, Lee couldn’t secure legally enforceable protections to ensure that the land would be made available “only to American families — not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.” Without those safeguards, he chose to walk it back.

That’s not selling out. That’s leadership.

It's what the legislative process is supposed to look like: A senator proposes a bill, the people respond, and the lawmaker listens. That was once known as representative democracy. These days, it gets you labeled a globalist sellout.

The Biden land-grab

To many Americans, “public land” brings to mind open spaces for hunting, fishing, hiking, and recreation. But that’s not what Sen. Mike Lee’s bill targeted.

His proposal would have protected against the real land-grab already under way — the one pushed by the Biden administration.

In 2021, Biden launched a plan to “conserve” 30% of America’s lands and waters by 2030. This effort follows the United Nations-backed “30 by 30” initiative, which seeks to place one-third of all land and water under government control.

Ask yourself: Is the U.N. focused on preserving your right to hunt and fish? Or are radical environmentalists exploiting climate fears to restrict your access to American land?

  Smith Collection/Gado / Contributor | Getty Images

As it stands, the federal government already owns 640 million acres — nearly one-third of the entire country. At this rate, the government will hit that 30% benchmark with ease. But it doesn’t end there. The next phase is already in play: the “50 by 50” agenda.

That brings me to a piece of legislation most Americans haven’t even heard of: the Sustains Act.

Passed in 2023, the law allows the federal government to accept private funding from organizations, such as BlackRock or the Bill Gates Foundation, to support “conservation programs.” In practice, the law enables wealthy elites to buy influence over how American land is used and managed.

Moreover, the government doesn’t even need the landowner’s permission to declare that your property contributes to “pollination,” or “photosynthesis,” or “air quality” — and then regulate it accordingly. You could wake up one morning and find out that the land you own no longer belongs to you in any meaningful sense.

Where was the outrage then? Where were the online crusaders when private capital and federal bureaucrats teamed up to quietly erode private property rights across America?

American families pay the price

The real danger isn’t in Mike Lee’s attempt to offer more housing near population centers — land that would be limited, clarified, and safeguarded in the final bill. The real threat is the creeping partnership between unelected global elites and our own government, a partnership designed to consolidate land, control rural development, and keep Americans penned in so-called “15-minute cities.”

BlackRock buying entire neighborhoods and pricing out regular families isn’t by accident. It’s part of a larger strategy to centralize populations into manageable zones, where cars are unnecessary, rural living is unaffordable, and every facet of life is tracked, regulated, and optimized.

That’s the real agenda. And it’s already happening , and Mike Lee’s bill would have been an effort to ensure that you — not BlackRock, not China — get first dibs.

I live in a town of 451 people. Even here, in the middle of nowhere, housing is unaffordable. The American dream of owning a patch of land is slipping away, not because of one proposal from a constitutional conservative, but because global powers and their political allies are already devouring it.

Divide and conquer

This controversy isn’t really about Mike Lee. It’s about whether we, as a nation, are still capable of having honest debates about public policy — or whether the online mob now controls the narrative. It’s about whether conservatives will focus on facts or fall into the trap of friendly fire and circular firing squads.

More importantly, it’s about whether we’ll recognize the real land-grab happening in our country — and have the courage to fight back before it’s too late.


This article originally appeared on TheBlaze.com.

URGENT: FIVE steps to CONTROL AI before it's too late!

MANAURE QUINTERO / Contributor | Getty Images

By now, many of us are familiar with AI and its potential benefits and threats. However, unless you're a tech tycoon, it can feel like you have little influence over the future of artificial intelligence.

For years, Glenn has warned about the dangers of rapidly developing AI technologies that have taken the world by storm.

He acknowledges their significant benefits but emphasizes the need to establish proper boundaries and ethics now, while we still have control. But since most people aren’t Silicon Valley tech leaders making the decisions, how can they help keep AI in check?

Recently, Glenn interviewed Tristan Harris, a tech ethicist deeply concerned about the potential harm of unchecked AI, to discuss its societal implications. Harris highlighted a concerning new piece of legislation proposed by Texas Senator Ted Cruz. This legislation proposes a state-level moratorium on AI regulation, meaning only the federal government could regulate AI. Harris noted that there’s currently no Federal plan for regulating AI. Until the federal government establishes a plan, tech companies would have nearly free rein with their AI. And we all know how slowly the federal government moves.

  

This is where you come in. Tristan Harris shared with Glenn the top five actions you should urge your representatives to take regarding AI, including opposing the moratorium until a concrete plan is in place. Now is your chance to influence the future of AI. Contact your senator and congressman today and share these five crucial steps they must take to keep AI in check:

Ban engagement-optimized AI companions for kids

Create legislation that will prevent AI from being designed to maximize addiction, sexualization, flattery, and attachment disorders, and to protect young people’s mental health and ability to form real-life friendships.

Establish basic liability laws

Companies need to be held accountable when their products cause real-world harm.

Pass increased whistleblower protections

Protect concerned technologists working inside the AI labs from facing untenable pressures and threats that prevent them from warning the public when the AI rollout is unsafe or crosses dangerous red lines.

Prevent AI from having legal rights

Enact laws so AIs don’t have protected speech or have their own bank accounts, making sure our legal system works for human interests over AI interests.

Oppose the state moratorium on AI 

Call your congressman or Senator Cruz’s office, and demand they oppose the state moratorium on AI without a plan for how we will set guardrails for this technology.