United States-based crypto advocacy organizations are calling out Senator Elizabeth Warren and other lawmakers for some of the claims made regarding connections between the terrorist group Hamas and financing through cryptocurrency.
On Oct. 17, Sen. Warren and more than 100 lawmakers signed a letter calling for action to “meaningfully curtail illicit crypto activity” used for funding Hamas and the Palestinian Islamic Jihad in the wake of an attack on Israelis. The Massachusetts Senator, a prominent crypto opponent in the U.S. Congress, also penned a Wall Street Journal op-ed with Sen. Roger Marshall on Oct. 18 with claims that “crypto-financed terrorism” endangered U.S. citizens by funding such groups as well as the production of illicit drugs.
Yaya Fanusie, director of anti-money laundering at the Crypto Council for Innovation, said Warren’s proposed solution to some of these issues would not address the problem occurring outside U.S. jurisdictions. Sen. Warren said her bill, the Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act, was aimed at ensuring “that the same rules to protect traditional payment systems from abuse are extended to crypto”.
“They are proposing KYC [Know Your Customer] rules akin to suggesting that copy machine manufacturers would need to KYC anyone using their copiers,” said Fanusie. “[Warren and Marshall] unfortunately fail to understand that the underlying blockchain technology actually makes transactions public, providing investigators a digital paper trail to identify terrorist operatives and their financial contributors.”
The Blockchain Association (BA) responded with similar claims in an Oct. 18 X (formerly Twitter) thread, pointing to reports from April that groups within Hamas stopped using Bitcoin (BTC) for supporting terrorist activities, as authorities could more easily track funds. According to the advocacy group, “only a small fraction of Hamas’s funding has come from crypto” and it was unclear how terrorists benefitted from those funds in the recent attacks on Israel.
“These proposals [Crypto-Asset National Security Enhancement and Enforcement and Digital Asset Anti-Money Laundering Act] will only punish law-abiding U.S.-based users and push all industry actors to other jurisdictions outside the reach of U.S. law enforcement,” said the BA.
1/ Any amount of funding that goes to support terrorist activity – in any form – is too much.
We share many of Sen. Warren’s questions – and we think further examination will reveal the limited and dwindling role that crypto played.https://t.co/jWwHNBe9oH
Sen. Warren’s op-ed as well as sanctions imposed by the U.S. Treasury’s Office of Foreign Assets Control followed an Oct. 7 attack by Hamas that resulted in the deaths of many Israelis. Israel has since declared war on the terrorist organization and began bombarding Gaza, creating a humanitarian crisis for hundreds of thousands of people caught in the crosshairs.
Certain U.S. lawmakers, including Sen. Warren, have sometimes pointed fingers at crypto amid an international crisis, such as digital assets being used to evade sanctions on Russia in the wake of the country’s attack on Ukraine. Prior to Hamas’s attack on Israel, Warren was particularly outspoken in cracking down on crypto’s alleged role in production of the drug fentanyl and other illicit purposes.
“Rather than politicizing this issue, [Sens. Warren and Marshall] should look to better support the talented and deeply knowledgeable people across multiple agencies who could use extra resources to help track down bad actors,” said Fanusie. “The U.S. should take proactive steps to make sure that law enforcement and national security officials have the best access to tools, training and expertise, and information that can be used to combat illicit activity, including around crypto.”
At the time of publication, it was unclear if any of Sen. Warren’s suggested bills would be able to move through Congress amid Republican members of the House of Representatives being unable to unite behind voting in a new Speaker. Since Speaker Kevin McCarthy’s position was declared vacant on Oct. 4, pro-crypto lawmaker and House Financial Services Committee chair Patrick McHenry has been acting as interim Speaker.
The government has said the £3 cap would stay in place for another year, until December 2025.
But speaking on Sunday morning with Trevor Phillips, Transport Secretary Louise Haugh indicated the government was considering abolishing the cap beyond that point to explore alternative methods of funding.
She said: “We’ve stepped in with funding to protect it at £3 until 31 December next year. And in that period, we’ll look to establish more targeted approaches.
“We’ve, through evaluation of the £2 cap, found that the best approach is to target it at young people.
“So we want to look at ways in order to ensure more targeted ways, just like we do with the concessionary fare for older people, we think we can develop more targeted ways that will better encourage people onto buses.”
Pressed again on whether that meant the single £3 cap would be removed after December 2025, and that other bus reliefs could be put in place, she replied: “That’s what we’re considering at the moment as we go through this year, as we have that time whilst the £3 cap is in place – because the evaluation that we had showed, it hadn’t represented good value for money, the previous cap.”
Advertisement
It comes after Ms Haigh also confirmed that HS2 would not run to Crewe.
There had been reports that Labour could instead build an “HS2-light” railway between Birmingham and Crewe.
But Ms Haigh said that while HS2 would be built from Birmingham to Euston, the government was “not resurrecting the plans for HS2”.
“HS2 Limited isn’t getting any further work beyond what’s been commissioned to Euston,” she added.
Last month the prime minster confirmed the £2 bus fare cap would rise to £3 – branded the “bus tax” by critics – saying that the previous government had not planned for the funding to continue past the end of 2024.
He said that although the cap would increase to £3, it would stay at that price until the end of 2025 “because I know how important it is”.
Manchester mayor to keep £2 cap
The cap rise has been unpopular with some in Labour, with Greater Manchester mayor Andy Burnham opting to keep the £2 cap in place for the whole of 2025, despite the maximum that can be charged across England rising to £3.
The region’s mayor said he was able to cap single fares at £2 because of steps he took to regulate the system and bring buses back into public ownership from last year.
He also confirmed plans to introduce a contactless payment system, with a daily and weekly cap on prices, as Greater Manchester moves towards a London-style system for public transport pricing.
Under devolution, local authorities and metro mayors can fund their own schemes to keep fares down, as has been the case in Greater Manchester, London and West Yorkshire.
Shelves will not be left empty this winter if farmers go on strike over tax changes, a cabinet minister has said.
Louise Haigh, the transport secretary, said the government would be setting out contingency plans to ensure food security is not compromised if farmers decide to protest.
Farmers across England and Wales have expressed anger that farms will no longer get 100% relief on inheritance tax, as laid out in Rachel Reeves’s budget last month.
Welsh campaign group Enough is Enough has called for a national strike among British farmers to stop producing food until the decision to impose inheritance tax on farms is reversed, while others also contemplate industrial action.
Asked by Trevor Phillips if she was concerned at the prospect that shelves could be empty of food this winter, Ms Haigh replied: “No, we think we put forward food security really as a priority, and we’ll work with farmers and the supply chain in order to ensure that.
“The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs will be setting out plans for the winter and setting out – as business as usual – contingency plans and ensuring that food security is treated as the priority it deserves to be.”
From April 2026, farms worth more than £1m will face an inheritance tax rate of 20%, rather than the standard 40% applied to other land and property.
However, farmers – who previously did not have to pay any inheritance tax – argue the change will mean higher food prices, lower food production and having to sell off land to pay.
Tom Bradshaw, the president of the National Farmers Union, said he had “never seen the united sense of anger that there is in this industry today”.
“I don’t for one moment condone that anyone will stop supplying the supermarkets,” he said.
“We saw during the COVID crisis that those unable to get their food were often either the very most vulnerable, or those that have been working long hours in hospitals and nurses – that is something we do not want to see again.”
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
7:06
Farmers ‘betrayed’ over tax change
Explaining why the tax changes were so unpopular, he said food production margins were “so low”, and “any liquid cash that’s been available has been reinvested in farm businesses” for the future.
“One of the immediate changes is that farms are going to have to start putting money into their pensions, which many haven’t previously done,” he said.
“They’re going to have to have life insurance policies in case of a sudden death. And unfortunately, that was cash that would previously have been invested in producing the country’s food for the future.”
Sir Keir has staunchly defended the measure, saying it will not affect small farms and is aimed at targeting wealthy landowners who buy up farmland to avoid paying inheritance tax.
However, the Conservatives have argued the changes amount to a “war on farmers” and have begun a campaign targeting the prime minister as a “farmer harmer”.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:19
‘Farmers’ livelihoods are threatened’
Speaking to Sunday Morning With Trevor Phillips, shadow home secretary Chris Philp said he was happy with farmers protesting against the budget – as long as their methods and tactics were “lawful”.
“What the Labour government has done to farmers is absolutely shocking,” he said.
“These are farmers that, you know, they’re not well off particularly, they’re often actually struggling to make ends meet because farming is not very profitable these days. And of course, we rely on farmers for our food security.
Addressing the possible protests, Mr Philp said: “I think people have a right to protest, and obviously we respect the right to protest within the law, and it’s up to parliament to set where the law sits.
“So I think providing they’re behaving lawfully, legally, then they do have a right to protest.”