North Carolina may soon join the cryptocurrency crowd.
House Speaker Destin Hall is pushing House Bill 92, which would allow the state treasurer to invest up to 10% of state funds — including pensions — in digital assets like cryptocurrencies and non-fungible tokens (better known as NFTs).
In the past six months, a majority of states have presented similar bills across party lines.
Hall, a Republican representing Watauga and Caldwell counties, told a legislative committee Wednesday that the state’s pension fund is “handcuffed” without the ability to diversify in digital assets like Bitcoin.
“Cryptocurrency is sort of an emerging issue in finance across the world,” Hall said. “We’re not plowing any new ground really in this bill; it’s new for North Carolina, but it’s not new across the world.”
Republican State Treasurer Brad Briner signaled his support for the bill in a memo to lawmakers. Briner previously worked for former New York City mayor and billionaire Michael Bloomberg, a fact Hall cited as a reason to trust his judgment.
Some, including state Rep. Bryan Cohn, were wary. Cryptocurrencies aren’t backed up by physical assets or government promises. Cohn said that may make cryptocurrencies prone to price manipulation and volatility. He worries of a potential future crash.
“I think it warrants caution,” said Cohn, a Democrat.
Hall pushed back against Cohn’s request for a study on cryptocurrency investment, and the bill won majority support in its first committee.
The House Pensions and Retirement Committee plans to hear the bill at its March 12 meeting. If it gets a favorable reaction, the measure will move to the full House chamber.
Limiting social media access for minors
While TikTok narrowly escaped a national ban — for now — lawmakers in Washington, and now North Carolina, aren’t pumping the brakes on social media regulation for minors.
A month after U.S. Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, reintroduced The Kids Off Social Media Act in Congress, North Carolina Rep. Jeff Zenger, R-Forsyth, filed his own bill setting social media limits for minors.
House Bill 301 would ban social media access for kids under 14 and require social media platforms to get parental consent before allowing 14- and 15-year-olds to create accounts.
Pre-existing accounts would be deleted. Social media platforms would also be required to delete all personal information gathered about these minor account holders.
Furthermore, the bill would mandate websites or applications that host a substantial portion of content considered “harmful to minors” use age verification methods to ensure users are 16 or older.
Age-verification laws have previously blocked access to sites altogether, as evidenced by Pornhub kicking users out in states like North Carolina that have passed such laws.
House Bill 301 was referred to a House Judiciary Committee, but is not yet scheduled for testimony.
Border protection bills
First, there was House Bill 10, passed late last year, which required sheriffs to cooperate with federal immigration officials.
Now, there’s Senate Bill 153 — the North Carolina Border Protection Act. The measure is similar to HB 10, but with statewide law enforcement agencies, alongside other measures, cracking down on illegal immigration.
Republican Senate leader Phil Berger of Rockingham County stamped his name on the latest immigration legislation as lead sponsor.
“It is evident there is a need for change when it comes to sanctuary policies in North Carolina,” said Berger before the Senate passed the bill along party lines. “The legislature is stepping up to ensure our citizens and communities are safe, but unfortunately Democrats are refusing to address the very real threat illegal immigration poses to our state.”
The bill would require officers of the Department of Public Safety, Department of Adult Corrections, State Highway Patrol and State Bureau of Investigation to determine if anyone in their custody or under their supervision was an undocumented immigrant. If so, they would be responsible for sharing that information with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, better known as ICE.
Under the proposed legislation, the state budget office would also have to audit public benefits programs to determine whether any undocumented immigrants had access to services like Medicaid, rental assistance or food stamps.
Additionally, Berger’s bill bans University of North Carolina-affiliated universities from acting as sanctuaries for undocumented immigrants. Those institutions may not maintain policies that limit enforcement of federal immigration laws, such as ones that would prevent law enforcement from gathering information on the citizenship status of students.
Finally, it allows counties and cities that have sanctuary policies to be sued if an undocumented immigrant commits a crime there.
Sammy Salkin, a policy analyst for the American Civil Liberties Union, testified before lawmakers that the bill was an “attack on immigrant communities” that attempted to “further the false narrative that immigrants are a drain on our public service system and pose a threat to public safety.”
In fact, undocumented immigrants living in North Carolina contribute to state and local tax revenue while already barred from receiving public benefits, Salkin said.
“This bill is not about protecting our communities,” she said. “It’s about furthering an anti-immigrant agenda, no matter the costs.”
Senate Bill 153 is now in the House, where it will likely be assigned a committee.
Other bills address immigration, too. House Bill 261, for instance, would enhance prison sentences for North Carolina residents who commit felonies and are also undocumented.
Dismantling DEI
Republicans in both chambers are targeting diversity, equity and inclusion efforts — but with different bills. While a House bill is looking to ban DEI within state agencies, a Senate bill aims to eliminate it in public education.
Under Senate Bill 227, public school educators could not promote a series of “divisive concepts” in the classroom. Among them:
One race or sex is inherently superior to another race or sex.
An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, is inherently racist, sexist or oppressive.
An individual, solely by virtue of his or her race or sex, bears responsibility for actions committed in the past by other members of the same race or sex.
Discriminatory practices, such as treating people differently or excluding someone from participation in an educational activity based on race, sex or other demographic factors, would also be banned.
Bill sponsor Sen. Michael Lee, R-New Hanover, said the bill is not a ban on teaching history, free speech, individual research or discussions on diversity, equity or inclusion. In fact, Lee thinks the goals of DEI are “laudable,” he told a Senate Education Committee on Wednesday.
But he believes the DEI effort has backfired.
“Unfortunately, a lot of these policies haven’t really opened doors for people to compete fairly, but have forced artificial outcomes at the expense of fairness and competency,” Lee said. “And many times, it did it for the very students the policies were trying to help.”
Democrats were concerned about implementation. One question they raised: Who decides what counts as promoting a divisive concept?
ACLU Policy Director Liz Barber said the bill may be unconstitutionally vague, since teachers would have to understand what they can and cannot say to follow the rules.
House Bill 171 hasn’t gotten quite as far yet. It would bar state agencies from maintaining DEI programs or policies, or implementing DEI training.
Agencies could not use taxpayer funds for DEI purposes, and could not accept federal money or grants that require compliance with inclusion mandates. Existing programs funded this way would be ended.
The bill has been referred to the House Judiciary committee, but is not on the calendar yet.
Red, white and true bills
North Carolina Republicans want fireworks this session — literally.
Both bills would allow state residents to buy fireworks at age 18. But that’s just the beginning.
House Bill 186 — the Stars and Stripes Commitment Act — requires public and charter schools to broadcast the Pledge of Allegiance every day as well as display U.S. and North Carolina flags in classrooms. However, no individual would be required to participate by standing, saluting or reciting the pledge. Senate Bill 123 would do the same, but with money to purchase the flags.
Other bills also deal with flags. House Bill 227 would mandate that state institutions only buy American and North Carolina flags that were entirely manufactured in the United States.
House Bill 244, the Depoliticize Government Property Act, would allow only specific flags to be flown on state property, like the American flag, the state flag and military flags. The list does not include rainbow flags, often used to show support for the LGBTQ+ community, or any other non-governmental flag.
SUMMARY: Jim Jenkins, a North Carolina baseball trailblazer and Negro Leagues player, exemplified resilience and excellence both on and off the field. His sons recall his superior skills—hitting, running, and catching—and how he faced challenges due to his skin color. Beyond baseball, Jenkins was a community father, teaching youths fundamentals and helping those in need. He shared a friendship with legend Hank Aaron, often attending Braves games with his family. His legacy endures through his children, who honor not just his athletic achievements but his kindness and humanity, inspiring future generations to carry on his impact.
James “Jim” Jenkins had a profound impact on the game of baseball as a trailblazer known in the Carolinas.
SUMMARY: A scientist reflecting on the politicization of science warns that ideological influence undermines objectivity, breeds mistrust, and hampers public understanding. The FY2026 budget proposal cut NIH funding by about 40%, saving taxpayers $18 billion, but only 1.5% of the total federal budget, while increasing defense spending by 13%. These cuts severely impact states like North Carolina, where science drives $2.4 billion in tax revenue and thousands of jobs. The cuts target indirect costs vital for research infrastructure and diversity efforts, mistakenly seen as ideological rather than essential scientific practices. The author calls for unity to prioritize facts over politics and protect scientific progress for societal and economic health.
www.thecentersquare.com – By Alan Wooten | The Center Square – (The Center Square – ) 2025-06-15 02:01:00
North Carolina’s U.S. House members voted along party lines on two Republican-backed bills: the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act” (H.R. 1), which cuts \$1.6 trillion in government spending, and the “Rescissions Act of 2025” (H.R. 4), which eliminates \$9.4 billion from entities like USAID and public broadcasting. Republicans called it a purge of waste, citing spending on drag shows and foreign projects. Democrats criticized the cuts as harmful and symbolic, calling the effort fiscally irresponsible. H.R. 1 passed 215-214; H.R. 4 passed 214-212. No Democrats supported either. A few Republicans broke ranks and voted against their party on each bill.
(The Center Square) – North Carolinians in the U.S. House of Representatives were unwavering of party preference for two bills now awaiting finalization in the Senate.
Republicans who favored them say the One Big Beautiful Bill Act, known also as House Resolution 1, slashed $1.6 trillion in waste, fraud and abuse of government systems. The Rescissions Act of 2025, known also as House Resolution 4, did away with $9.4 billion – less than six-tenths of 1% of the other legislation – in spending by the State Department, the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID), the Corp. for Public Broadcasting (PBS, NPR), and other entities.
Democrats against them say the Department of Government Efficiency made “heartless budget cuts” and was an “attack on the resources that North Carolinians were promised and that Congress has already appropriated.”
Republicans from North Carolina in favor of both were Reps. Dr. Greg Murphy, Virginia Foxx, Addison McDowell, David Rouzer, Rev. Mark Harris, Richard Hudson, Pat Harrigan, Chuck Edwards, Brad Knott and Tim Moore.
Democrats against were Reps. Don Davis, Deborah Ross, Valerie Foushee and Alma Adams.
Foxx said the surface was barely skimmed with cuts of “$14 million in cash vouchers for migrants at our southern border; $24,000 for a national spelling bee in Bosnia; $1.5 million to mobilize elderly, lesbian, transgender, nonbinary and intersex people to be involved in the Costa Rica political process; $20,000 for a drag show in Ecuador; and $32,000 for an LGBTQ comic book in Peru.”
Adams said, “While Elon Musk claimed he would cut $1 trillion from the federal government, the recissions package amounts to less than 1% of that. Meanwhile, House Republicans voted just last month to balloon the national debt by $3 trillion in their One Big Ugly Bill. It’s fiscal malpractice, not fiscal responsibility.”
House Resolution 1 passed 215-214 and House Resolution 4 went forward 214-212. Republican Reps. Warren Davidson of Ohio and Thomas Massie of Kentucky were against the One Big Beautiful Bill and Republican Reps. Mark Amodei of Nevada, Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania, Nicole Malliotakis of New York and Michael Turner of Ohio were against the Rescissions Act.
Note: The following A.I. based commentary is not part of the original article, reproduced above, but is offered in the hopes that it will promote greater media literacy and critical thinking, by making any potential bias more visible to the reader –Staff Editor.
Political Bias Rating: Centrist
The article presents a straightforward report on the partisan positions and voting outcomes related to two specific bills, highlighting the contrasting views of Republicans and Democrats without using loaded or emotionally charged language. It neutrally conveys the Republicans’ framing of the bills as efforts to cut waste and reduce spending, alongside Democrats’ critique of those cuts as harmful and insufficient fiscal discipline. By providing direct quotes from representatives of both parties and clearly stating voting results, the content maintains factual reporting without promoting a particular ideological stance. The balanced presentation of arguments and absence of editorializing indicate a commitment to neutrality rather than an intentional partisan perspective.
