A growing number of U.S. politicians have come out against CBDCs, with many citing the risk of financial censorship.

U.S. presidential candidate Robert Kennedy Jr. supported Bitcoin ( BTC ) while opposing central bank digital currencies (CBDCs) in a Twitter post on May 5.

In Kennedy’s view, the digitization of money has given governments unprecedented power to monitor and control economic life, and he believes that CBDCs will further “amplify the power of governments to suppress dissent by cutting off access to money at the touch of a button.”

The presidential candidate’s opposition to CBDCs is unsurprising, as he has described them as a tool of “financial slavery and political tyranny.”

Meanwhile, Kennedy said Bitcoin allows people to conduct transactions without government interference. He further described the flagship digital asset as a “lifesaver for mobility for people around the world.”

Governments financially censor their political opponents

In the absence of a CBDC, Kennedy highlighted how governments can financially censor their political opponents. He said this often comes into play in authoritarian regimes, but is also used in Western countries such as Canada.

Kennedy cited the example of how the Canadian government froze the bank accounts of more than 200 people because they protested against vaccine mandates.

According to Kennedy, the incident shows that the United States could one day freeze the bank accounts of individuals because of their political views and comments on social media.

He added, “After all, in 2010, Paypal, Visa and MasterCard suspended WikiLeaks at the request of the US State Department.”

The rise of anti-CBDC positions

Meanwhile, a growing number of U.S. politicians are opposing CBDCs, citing the risk of financial censorship.

Several U.S. states, such as Florida, North Dakota, and North Carolina, have introduced bills that would ban the use of national digital currencies. Senator Ted Cruz has also introduced a bill that would prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing such a currency.

While some crypto community members praised the ban, some stakeholders warned that the anti-CBDC move could hurt Bitcoin. The Bitcoin Policy Institute wrote that South Dakota Governor Kristi Noem’s decision to veto the CBDC bill affected BTC.

According to the institute, the bill contains provisions that expand the definition and protection of Bitcoin. Among other things, it creates a legal mechanism that recognizes self-custody and protocols as included in traditional lending, insurance and commercial transactions.