Senate Passes Stablecoin Bill in Big Win for Crypto Industry
The Senate passed legislation to regulate a widely used type of cryptocurrency, a key victory for the digital-asset industry after it poured money into last year's election.
The bill, the first of its kind to put federal guardrails on digital currencies, sets up oversight of stablecoins, a popular crypto asset typically pegged to a fiat currency such as the U.S. dollar. That peg keeps their price steady, making them attractive to traders looking for a store of value while they buy and sell more volatile cryptocurrencies. Stablecoins can also be used for cross-border payments.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CBS News
10 minutes ago
- CBS News
Sacramento's Cosumnes River Preserve could be impacted by U.S. sale of federal land for housing
U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing U.S. considers selling more than 16 million acres of federal land in California for housing SACRAMENTO — The U.S. Senate is considering selling over 16 million acres of federal land in California to turn into housing, including in Sacramento. The plan is part of President Trump's "Big Beautiful Bill," or budget reconciliation bill, which proposed putting over 250 million acres of public land in western states for sale, including land governed by the Bureau of Land Management U.S. Forest Service. The spot in Sacramento that could be impacted is the Consumnes River Preserve. "We were out there for about three hours this morning and it's a prize. It's really something worth saving," said Josh Schermerhorn, who was enjoying the Consumnes River Preserve with his wife Kathy on Tuesday. Senators who support this bill said selling federal land will generate upward of $10 billion for the government. "The thought of the sale of public lands is pretty un-American," said Katie Hawkins, California program director of the Outdoor Alliance. Hawkins said they are suspicious of the proposal because there are no safeguards in the plan that would prevent pretty much anyone from buying it. "Whether it's extraction, timber sales or if it's development for wealthy developers or even foreign interest," said Hawkins. Her other concern is whether the land is really meant to be built on. Historically, the area has seen flooding with waters spreading across nearby wetlands and rice fields. "I think flooding is natural," said kayaker Kather Schermerhorn. "This is an area that's not hurting anybody and to let it be natural." Mike Lee, a Republican Senator from Utah, has been pushing for the federal land to be sold, but not everyone in his party is on board. "It is so important that the acquisition or disposition of any of these lands be made only after significant and meaningful local input," said Republican California Rep. Kevin Kiley. Kiley openly opposed the idea on the House floor several weeks ago. The House voted against it, but the proposal is still alive on the Senate side. "We have other places where housing could be built and it doesn't have to be on a pristine, precious preserve," said Kathy. A staff member from one of the 10 organizations within the Consumnes River Preserve Partnership told CBS13 that the land is not meant to be built on and thinks solving the housing crisis should not cost Americans losing natural gems. Other California land that could be impacted includes parts of Lake Tahoe, Yosemite and Joshua Tree. Democratic U.S. Senator Alex Padilla sent CBS13 this statement about the proposal: "Make no mistake, this latest Republican proposal is riddled with anti-environment provisions meant to create the largest public land sell off in recent memory to subsidize their tax cuts for billionaires. If Republicans have their way, we will never get our public lands back once they are privatized. Our public lands and natural spaces are some of our nation's greatest gifts and I will do everything I can do to protect them." The Senate has until July 4 to decide on this bill.
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Are Lindsey Graham's contortions about to prod Trump into Russia sanctions?
Has Lindsey Graham been playing the long game with Donald Trump? Graham, who has calibrated his pro-Ukraine support since the inauguration to stay in the US president's orbit, has said he expects this week that the Senate will begin moving his Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, a bill that he says would impose 'bone-breaking sanctions' on Vladimir Putin and a 500% tariff on goods imported from countries that buy Russian oil and other goods, potentially targeting China and India. The fate of the bill still depends on whether Trump gives the go-ahead, according to congressional insiders. But Trump's growing frustration with Putin has emboldened some in the GOP to begin speaking out on the conflict again – with the notoriously flexible Graham leading the charge for tougher sanctions on the Kremlin. Is it nearing a critical mass moment in Congress – a body that has largely abdicated its role in foreign policy since Trump's inauguration? 'I hope so, because it is the right action to take,' said Don Bacon, a Republican House representative who has criticised the White House on its Ukraine policy. 'But it is risky to speak for others. I know where I stand. The Senate has an overwhelming majority in support of sanctions and we should move out. It is in our national security interests that Russia fails here and it should be obvious that Putin doesn't want peace, but wants dominance over Ukraine.' Trump's shift on Russia has come as his efforts to negotiate a speedy ceasefire have failed. Talks between Russia and Ukraine in Istanbul on Monday led to little progress, and continued outreach from his personal envoy, Steve Witkoff, to the Kremlin has not brought concessions from Vladimir Putin. A leaked draft of Russia's demands at the negotiations depicted a capitulation: withdrawal from Ukrainian territory claimed by Russia, no Nato membership for Ukraine, caps on the size of the country's military. Yet it has specifically been the bombardment of cities that has upset Trump, proving once again that Putin has managed to be his own worst enemy when it comes to negotiations. 'I've always had a very good relationship with Vladimir Putin of Russia, but something has happened to him,' Trump said last week, repeating part of the comments in public. 'He has gone absolutely CRAZY! He is needlessly killing a lot of people, and I'm not just talking about soldiers. Missiles and drones are being shot into Cities in Ukraine, for no reason whatsoever.' As the White House looks for means to increase pressure on Russia and its enablers like China, the bill backed by Graham and the Democratic senator Richard Blumenthal has become a convenient tool to do just that. One person in GOP circles said that the White House was considering letting Republicans 'vote their conscience' – in effect allowing Congress to support the bill without facing blowback from the Trump administration. But that would involve a final decision by the White House, and Trump has still not openly backed new sanctions as more than just a contingency. 'Despite support of 82 or so senators, the bill can't move without support in the House, and the speaker of the House won't move it without the president's support,' said Kori Schake of the American Enterprise Institute. 'And it's not clear the president has really decided Putin's the impediment to a ceasefire. Additionally, the Senate will be consumed with passing the reconciliation bill for the next few weeks.' But as of Tuesday, the leadership appeared ready to move forward. The weather vane for Trump's gusty foreign policy on Ukraine has been Graham, a veteran political survivor who has built a strong relationship with the president through relentless flattery and has tailored his views to match Trump's when convenient. On Ukraine, he has been so bendable that he could not be broken. 'They play a very careful game because they don't want to upset their relationship with the big guy,' said one person knowledgable about discussions among congressional Republicans. 'At the same time, I do think his heart and his head is in the right place. Just really not quite his own courage.' Graham's interventions have been meaningful. He was instrumental in pushing the minerals deal that Ukraine signed with the US as a way to get Trump's buy-in for its defense. Over a game of golf, he pitched Trump on the 'trillions' in mineral wealth in Ukraine and later showed him a map (Trump said he wanted 'half' according to one account). At the same time, he publicly fumed about Volodymyr Zelenskyy following the disastrous White House meeting of late February when Trump and JD Vance argued with the wartime leader. 'I don't know if we can ever do business with Zelenskyy again,' Graham said, also suggesting that the Ukrainian leader should resign. (Zelenskyy shot back later that he was ready to offer him citizenship if he wanted to discuss who should lead Ukraine). Graham's latitude has stunned some of his former colleagues. A former colleague who had worked with Graham on Ukraine policy said that his remarks about Zelenskyy had given him 'whiplash'. Asked if Graham had a coherent strategy to influence Trump, the person said: 'Graham's strategy is to put Graham first.' 'I think that he understands the big game,' said another person familiar with discussions over the bill. 'He would like the policy to be sound, which means [putting sanctions] on the Kremlin. But he values his relationship with the president and that that trumps the first calculation. So if he really feels the president's against, he's not going to go for it.' Now, with Trump signaling greater readiness for sanctions, Graham has traveled to Kyiv to meet with Zelenskyy (all smiles) and to Brussels, where he and the EU president, Ursula von der Leyen, discussed potential EU and US sanctions packages to turn up the pressure on Moscow. 'Senator Graham deserves a lot of credit for making the case for tougher pressure on the Kremlin,' said John Hardie, the Russia program deputy director of the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, a conservative thinktank. 'Carrots clearly haven't worked, so it's time to start using some sticks, including by going after Russia's oil revenue. This economic pressure should be paired with sustained military assistance for Ukraine.' Hardie and others noted that Trump could increase pressure on Russia without the Senate bill. 'If President Trump were to decide to go the pressure route, he already has the tools at his disposal to do so,' said Hardie. 'For example, he could immediately designate the rest of Russia's shadow fleet and other non-western entities facilitating Russian oil exports and could join with G7 partners in lowering the G7 oil price cap.' And even if the sanctions are passed, they will ultimately rely on Trump's decision to enforce them. 'The Senate is prepared either way,' Graham wrote in a Wall Street Journal op-ed last week. 'I have coordinated with the White House on the Russia sanctions bill since its inception. The bill would put Russia on a trade island, slapping 500% tariffs on any country that buys Moscow's energy products. The consequences of its barbaric invasion must be made real to those that prop it up. If China or India stopped buying cheap oil, Mr Putin's war machine would grind to a halt.'
Yahoo
11 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Alex Padilla: ‘Not shocked in the least bit' about Brad Lander's arrest
LOS ANGELES — California Sen. Alex Padilla dominated headlines last week when he was handcuffed for disrupting Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's news conference. And while the news cycle has whirred at warp speed to other issues, Padilla is continuing to speak out about the incident — not just to highlight his own ordeal, he says, but to warn that it could happen to others who object to the Trump administration's immigration crackdown. He didn't have to wait long to prove his point. Just as Padilla took to the Senate floor to deliver an emotional speech, New York City comptroller and mayoral candidate Brad Lander was arrested in a courthouse after demanding to see a judicial warrant for an immigrant federal officials were attempting to detain. The Department of Homeland Security said Lander assaulted and impeded the work of a federal officer. Padilla, in a phone interview after his speech, said he was 'sadly, not shocked in the least bit' to hear of Lander's detention. He spoke to POLITICO about Lander, the backstory of his appearance at Noem's news conference, the words that pushed him to interrupt her remarks and more. This interview has been edited for length and clarity. The administration got a good amount of backlash and outrage after what happened to you, yet you're still seeing federal immigration agents treat elected officials like Lander in this way. What does that tell you about how the administration absorbed the criticism that came after your incident? They clearly don't care. If we go play-by-play since what happened to me last Thursday … it certainly got a lot of attention. It may or may not have played a small part in an announcement I heard about on Friday [where] the president directed the Department of Homeland Security to ease up on enforcement actions at hotels and agricultural fields and restaurants. I was asked at that time, was that a step in the right direction? And it might have been a baby step in the right direction, but we see what was next. By Monday, they're reversing that direction — and not only reversing it, but what happened in between was Donald Trump via social media saying, 'Let's go all in with enforcement in blue cities.' If there was any question as to whether or not this was a raw political attack on cities that elect Democratic leaders, you have all the proof that you need. And it's absolutely wrong, it's absolutely un-American. Going back to last Thursday, the moment I felt compelled to speak — not just as a senator, but as an American — was in hearing Secretary Noem, and surely not for the first time, suggest that the mission of the federalized National Guard and the Marines coming to Los Angeles was to 'liberate' Los Angeles from its governor and its mayor. I mean, that is a horrible notion and a horrible precedent to set, if that's where things are going. That was the theme of your speech today — focusing on that phrasing about 'liberating' Los Angeles. What is it about that rhetoric that startled you so much that you wanted to highlight it? Just stop and think about that notion. It is not the job of a president or any administration to dictate which governors or which mayors lead the constituents that duly and democratically elected them. It is not the mission of the United States military to deploy domestically to 'liberate' cities from their duly elected political leadership. But it is the weaponization of the National Guard in this case, and the Department of Defense, the Marines, in particular, by this president. He is on a retribution tour, and he's got blue cities and Democratic leaders in his sights. … When are Republicans going to stand up and hold him accountable? You have gotten some criticism from the right that interrupting the press conference was political theater. How do you respond to that? Nothing could be further from the truth. You can't make this up. I was in the federal building in West Los Angeles for a scheduled briefing by representatives of Northern Command — General Guillot, the four-star general overseeing this military operation in Los Angeles. I got to the building, was met at the entrance by a National Guardsman and an FBI agent, who put me through the security screening process, escorted me up [and] put me into a conference room for the briefing. As we're waiting for the briefing to start, we catch wind that the secretary of Homeland Security is a couple doors down the hall starting a press briefing, and my briefing was going to be delayed because some of the people I'm supposed to be hearing from are in that press briefing. So the thought hits me: Well, maybe if we go listen, they might be sharing some helpful information or insightful information. So I asked. I didn't just get up and start walking, I asked, 'Can we go over and listen?' My escorts — again, a National Guardsman, an FBI agent — escorted me to the press briefing. They opened the door for me, they walked in and were standing near me as I was listening for several minutes during the press conference. And then when I felt compelled to start asking questions, before I could get two or three words out, there were hands on me, and you saw what happened next. So this was not theatrics. This was not me crashing an event. You can't get more secure than being in an FBI office in the second-largest city in America. California leaders have been pushing back against the intervention from the federal government to handle the protests and at times destructive incidents in Los Angeles. They've argued that local law enforcement could handle the unrest. But there has been some concern about how local law enforcement handled some of the larger crowds. The Los Angeles Press Club just sued the LAPD alleging that journalists had been routinely targeted, infringing on their rights to cover the protests. Do you have any thoughts on how local law enforcement handled themselves? I haven't seen what's transpired in the last couple days. I can speak generally to the last week and a half. Los Angeles is no stranger to rallies and protests and marches, et cetera. I do have confidence in the sheriff, the sheriff's department, the police chief and the police department to handle it. Have they been perfect over the years? No, but by and large, they're very good at it. What was not helpful, what was without need [was] the federalization of National Guard troops. Them being sent in escalated tensions in Los Angeles. It was already bad enough with the increasingly cruel and theatrical detentions that were happening. In talking to the police chief regularly, in talking to the sheriff regularly, not only were the federal forces not necessary. It was counterproductive. It made their jobs harder. They were frustrated because there's been no communication or coordination by the federal agencies with local law enforcement. You spoke today about getting involved in political activism in 1994 – the year that Proposition 187, which sought to bar immigrants without legal status from accessing public social services, was on the ballot. Prop 187 is seen as a catalyst for Latino political involvement. Do you think we're in a new Prop 187-like moment? There are so many parallels. Look, as painful as my experience might have been on Thursday, not just for me, but for my family, and frankly, anybody watching … if one of the outcomes from what happened is that more people are inspired to get engaged and to influence our government and our politics for the better, to be more consistent with our true American values, to embrace diversity, to embrace the contributions of so many hard working non-violent migrants, and we have a political discourse and a government and a society that reflects that beautiful diversity, then that is a positive outcome. But we clearly have a lot of work to do. The California story of people responding to Proposition 187, not by cowering to the anti-immigrant rhetoric and forces, but by engaging — like my parents, who have been in the United States for decades without any interest or urgency in becoming citizens, finally taking those steps, not just to protect their status in the United States, but so that they can register and vote and have a voice. And we had a whole generation, me and so many other of my colleagues now in public office, that were inspired by 187 to organize and register people to vote and to run for office. The politics of California today are very different, much more progressive on a number of issues, and that is a model for organizers and communities throughout the country should they choose to follow it.
