The latest iteration of the GENIUS Act, a bill to regulate payment stablecoins, has seen mixed support from Democrats. While it initially garnered bipartisan backing, including from Democratic Senators Kirsten Gillibrand and Angela Alsobrooks, recent developments show a split. A May 15, 2025, draft addressed some Democratic concerns, with concessions on anti-money laundering, national security, and ethics, particularly around conflicts of interest tied to President Trump’s crypto ventures.
Senator Gillibrand claimed progress, suggesting several Democrats were ready to support it. However, a procedural vote on May 8, 2025, failed (48-49), with key Democrats like Ruben Gallego, Mark Warner, and even co-sponsors Gillibrand and Alsobrooks voting against advancing it, citing insufficient safeguards. Senator Elizabeth Warren remains firmly opposed, highlighting issues like potential corruption and Big Tech involvement. A new vote is likely soon, but Democratic support remains uncertain as they push for stronger provisions.
The GENIUS Act’s latest iteration, aimed at regulating payment stablecoins, has significant implications for the U.S. crypto market and reveals a deepening divide among Democrats, reflecting broader tensions over financial innovation, regulation, and political priorities. A successful bill could provide a clear regulatory framework, fostering mainstream adoption of stablecoins by ensuring consumer protections, anti-money laundering (AML) compliance, and financial stability. This could attract institutional investment and legitimize crypto as a payment mechanism.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 17 (June 9 – Sept 6, 2025) today for early bird discounts. Do annual for access to Blucera.com.
Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass opens registrations.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register to become a better CEO or Director with Tekedia CEO & Director Program.
Failure to pass could prolong regulatory uncertainty, stifling innovation and leaving the U.S. behind jurisdictions like the EU, which already have stablecoin frameworks (e.g., MiCA). The bill’s AML and sanctions provisions aim to curb illicit use of stablecoins, a concern for regulators. Stronger measures could align with global standards, but overly restrictive rules might push crypto activity offshore to less-regulated jurisdictions.
Democrats’ push for robust national security safeguards reflects fears of stablecoins enabling money laundering or bypassing sanctions, especially amid geopolitical tensions. Stablecoins handle billions in transactions, with potential to rival traditional payment systems. Regulation could boost U.S. economic competitiveness but risks favoring Big Tech or entrenched financial players, a concern for progressive Democrats.
The bill’s ties to President Trump’s crypto ventures (e.g., TrumpCoin) raise ethical red flags, potentially undermining public trust if perceived as benefiting political insiders. Passage could position the U.S. as a leader in crypto regulation, influencing global standards. Delay risks ceding ground to China’s digital yuan or other centralized digital currencies.
Pro-Crypto Democrats (e.g., Kirsten Gillibrand, Angela Alsobrooks): Support stems from a belief that regulated stablecoins can drive financial inclusion and innovation. Gillibrand, a co-sponsor, sees the bill as a way to balance consumer protection with industry growth. Recent concessions (e.g., ethics rules, AML enhancements) were tailored to win their backing, but their procedural vote opposition (May 8, 2025) suggests lingering concerns over rushed implementation or insufficient safeguards.
Skeptical/Progressive Democrats (e.g., Elizabeth Warren, Ruben Gallego, Mark Warner): Warren and others view stablecoins as risks to financial stability, consumer rights, and democratic integrity, especially given potential ties to Trump’s business interests. They fear the bill could enable corruption or empower Big Tech (e.g., Meta, Amazon) to dominate digital payments. They demand stronger protections, like limits on corporate issuer size, stricter auditing, and explicit bans on conflicts of interest. Their procedural vote rejection signals a willingness to block the bill unless these are addressed.
Pro-crypto Democrats prioritize competing with global markets, while progressives fear deregulation could repeat past financial crises. Supporting a bill linked to Trump’s crypto ventures is politically toxic for some, especially amid allegations of self-dealing. Big Tech Influence: Concerns persist that the bill could let tech giants issue stablecoins, consolidating economic power, a red line for progressives.
The failed procedural vote (48-49) underscores the fragility of bipartisan support and Democratic unity. With a new vote looming, Republicans (led by figures like Ted Cruz) are pushing for quick passage, leveraging Trump’s crypto-friendly stance. Democrats face pressure to coalesce around a version with stronger consumer and ethical protections to avoid being seen as obstructing innovation.
However, Warren’s bloc may hold firm, risking a stalemate if demands aren’t met. The divide could delay or reshape the bill, impacting the U.S.’s role in the global crypto landscape. If passed, the act’s final form will likely reflect a compromise tilting toward progressive concerns to secure enough Democratic votes.