Representative Thomas Massie has reintroduced H.R. 1846, the Federal Reserve Board Abolition Act, reopening one of the most contentious debates in U.S. economic policy: whether the country should dismantle its central bank altogether. The proposal seeks to abolish the Federal Reserve system and repeal the 1913 Federal Reserve Act, the law that created the institution more than a century ago.
The bill represents a renewed push from lawmakers who argue that the Fed has accumulated too much power over the economy and bears significant responsibility for inflation, financial distortions, and the long-term decline in the dollar’s purchasing power. Massie’s latest move also arrives with support from the Senate side, where Senator Mike Lee has introduced a companion bill, S. 869.
What the Bill Proposes
According to the proposal, the Federal Reserve Board of Governors and the system’s 12 regional Federal Reserve banks would be dissolved through a structured transition. The legislation outlines a one-year wind-down period during which the Fed chair would supervise the liquidation of the central bank’s assets and liabilities in an orderly manner.
Under the plan, proceeds from that liquidation would be transferred to the U.S. Treasury. Any remaining liabilities, including employee benefits and related obligations, would be assumed by the federal government. The bill also requires the Treasury and the Office of Management and Budget to deliver a report to Congress 18 months after enactment, detailing how the transition was carried out.
That structure is significant because it shows the legislation is not framed solely as a political statement. Instead, it attempts to set out a procedural roadmap for dismantling a central institution that sits at the center of U.S. monetary policy, bank supervision, and financial market operations.
Massie’s Case Against the Fed
Massie argues that the Federal Reserve has been a central driver of inflation in the United States. In remarks cited alongside the bill’s reintroduction, he said Americans have suffered under severe inflation and blamed the Fed for creating trillions of dollars during the COVID era and effectively financing extraordinary federal deficit spending.
His criticism centers on debt monetization—the process by which central bank actions support government borrowing and spending. In Massie’s view, this coordination between the Federal Reserve, the Treasury Department, Congress, major banks, and Wall Street has weakened the dollar and harmed ordinary savers. He argues that retirees and households on fixed incomes are among those most exposed when inflation erodes purchasing power.
Massie’s position is blunt: if the goal is to reduce inflation in a meaningful way, ending the Federal Reserve is, in his words, the most effective policy response. He presents the institution not as a stabilizing force, but as an enabler of reckless fiscal expansion and asset-price favoritism that benefits the well-connected more than the average American.
Support From the Senate
Senator Mike Lee, who introduced the companion measure in the Senate, echoed many of the same concerns. Lee said the Federal Reserve has failed to meet its mandate and has instead become an economic manipulator that contributes directly to the financial instability many Americans face.
The House and Senate versions together give the effort a broader platform than a standalone symbolic filing. While the legislation still faces a steep path in practical terms, the parallel introduction in both chambers signals a coordinated ideological challenge to the legitimacy of the modern U.S. central banking model.
A Long-Running Movement Returns
The idea of abolishing the Federal Reserve is not new. The article notes that former Representative Ron Paul first introduced such legislation in 1999, and the proposal was last reintroduced in 2013. Massie’s current bill revives that tradition, linking today’s inflation debate to a much older critique of fiat money, discretionary monetary policy, and centralized control over interest rates and the money supply.
Critics of the Fed have long argued that the institution operates with too much independence and too little democratic accountability. They contend that by influencing interest rates, managing liquidity, and intervening during crises, the Fed often ends up protecting financial elites while exposing the broader public to currency debasement and distorted markets.
Supporters of abolition frequently frame the institution as a mechanism that socializes losses, rewards excessive leverage, and repeatedly intervenes in ways that reinforce dependence on centralized policy management. In that reading, inflation is not simply a byproduct of economic shocks, but a structural outcome of the current monetary regime.
Why the Timing Matters
The report suggests that the current political environment may make proposals once viewed as fringe more relevant than in prior years. With Republicans controlling Congress and the presidency, reforms aimed at the Federal Reserve are described as no longer purely theoretical. Whether or not H.R. 1846 can move through the full legislative process, its reintroduction reflects a political climate in which criticism of central banking has become more mainstream in some corners of Washington.
This matters well beyond traditional policy circles. Debates over the Fed influence expectations for inflation, interest rates, the dollar, Treasury markets, and risk assets. For participants in the digital asset sector, such proposals are especially notable because they intersect with broader arguments about monetary sovereignty, hard assets, and alternatives to centrally managed financial systems.
Broader Implications
If enacted, the bill would amount to one of the most radical restructurings of the U.S. financial architecture in modern history. The Federal Reserve is deeply embedded in monetary operations, banking oversight, payment infrastructure, and crisis response. Removing it would raise far-reaching questions about who would manage liquidity, supervise banks, and serve as lender of last resort.
Still, the bill’s immediate importance lies less in its odds of becoming law and more in what it signals politically. It highlights a deep and persistent divide over the role of central banks, the causes of inflation, and the distributional effects of monetary policy. For critics, the Federal Reserve symbolizes concentrated financial power. For its defenders, it remains a necessary institution for macroeconomic management and systemic stability.
Massie’s reintroduced legislation ensures that this debate will not remain academic. By directly challenging the legal foundation of the Fed, the bill forces a fresh look at the institution’s record, its mandate, and its future. Even if H.R. 1846 ultimately stalls, it has already succeeded in putting the question back on the national agenda: should the United States continue to rely on a central bank created in 1913, or is the country ready to consider a fundamentally different monetary framework?