Democratic divisions emerge as Congress tackles crypto regulation
Democrats are wrestling with their strategy on cryptocurrency, a once underground industry that has become a powerful player on Capitol Hill — and closely associated with President Donald Trump.
Cryptocurrency groups scored a major win in Washington on Tuesday, with the Senate passing a landmark bill to regulate some digital assets. It was a bipartisan vote, with 18 Democrats joining nearly every Republican to support the bill following an intense lobbying and advocacy effort.
But the battle over the legislation has exposed deep Democratic divisions over how to handle the broader issue of crypto in a GOP-controlled Washington. While some Democrats have pushed for the party to be leading the charge on developing policy for the quickly emerging industry, others have been wary of embracing a tool that they say has created conflicts of interest for Trump. Newly released financial disclosures show Trump made one of his largest fortunes last year, $57.3 million, on his family's cryptocurrency company World Liberty Financial.
Progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking committee, said the GENIUS Act — the bill the Senate passed that would establish the first regulatory framework for issuers of stablecoins, digital tokens pegged to fiat currencies like the U.S. dollar — would create a 'superhighway' for corruption in the Trump White House.
Warren also lamented to NBC News that the crypto industry is 'pouring money in to try to influence votes here in Congress.'
But other Democrats see this is a rare chance for Congress to get ahead of an issue, arguing they can't afford to wait until they win back power in Washington to act — especially with how quickly technology moves.
'I think every politician will say this. It's the same thing about any industry that they don't like or understand,' Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., who supports the GENIUS Act, told NBC news in an interview.
The GENIUS Act now heads to the House, where the Democratic divide over cryptocurrency — which can often fall along generational lines — came to a head during a private meeting last week attended by House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., other Democratic leaders and committee ranking members, according to three sources who were in the room and a fourth source who was briefed on the meeting.
Rep. Angie Craig, D-Minn., who is running for the Senate, expressed her support for the industry and a recent bipartisan bill called the Clarity Act, which would provide a regulatory framework for digital assets, according to three of the sources.
The 53-year-old Craig serves in the House Agriculture Committee as the top Democrat, and 86-year-old Rep. Maxine Waters, D-Calif., is the ranking member in the Financial Services Committee. Waters opposes the legislation and instead wants to bar Trump from benefiting from the digital assets Congress could legitimize.
Waters expressed those concerns in the Wednesday meeting, three of the sources said. Other members agreed, including Rep. Jim Himes, D-Conn., the ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee.
Both Himes and Waters stressed a need for greater insider trading protections in the bill, the three sources said. The lawmakers said Democrats should not enable Trump to get wealthy off of unfettered access to the industry he wants Congress to regulate.
Craig argued Trump was already bound by existing laws, one of the sources said. Waters began talking over Craig, who told the room that she was in the middle of speaking, leading to a heated discussion, the source said.
As this episode was unfolding, Rep. Bobby Scott, D-Va., suggested that perhaps Democrats should act to ban the industry altogether, two sources added — an example of just how wildly far apart some Democrats are on the issue.
Jeffries moved to table the discussion for another time, the three sources said. After the meeting, both Waters and a Craig spokespersons declined to comment, saying the meeting was private. Jeffries' office also declined to comment on a private meeting. A spokesperson for Scott did not respond to a request for comment.
Craig, whose re-election campaign received a big boost from groups associated with the industry last year, has backed a check on Trump. During the Agriculture Committee markup on the Clarity Act, Rep. Eugene Vindman, D-Va., offered an amendment targeting entities that hold meme-based assets associated with the president, vice president or other public officials. All 24 Democrats on the panel, including Craig, backed the amendment; Republicans successfully voted it down.
Looming over the Democratic debate is the fact that groups associated with the crypto industry were heavily involved in the last election.
Fairshake, a crypto-focused super PAC that formed in 2023, spent $195 million in the 2024 elections. And the group already has $116 million in cash on hand for the 2026 midterm election cycle, according to the group's spokesperson, Josh Vlasto.
'We are keeping our foot on the gas and all options are on the table,' Vlasto told NBC News.
Crypto groups supported candidates from both parties in 2024, but they also spent $40 million to oppose then-Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, who was ultimately defeated by Republican Bernie Moreno. That race is still lingering in the air among Democrats who fear that kind of cash being used against them.
The cryptocurrency industry has also dialed up its lobbying and grassroots advocacy efforts in recent years.
Stand With Crypto, an advocacy group, launched a campaign around the passage of the GENIUS Act encouraging people to call or email their senators in support of the bill. The effort resulted in 75,000 emails being sent to members, according to the organization.
The group also organized so-called fly-in meetings ahead of key votes on the bill in order to link members with constituents who utilize crypto.
Stand With Crypto has not made any election endorsements, but it is leaving itself the room to do so in the future. In the meantime, the group created a 'scorecard' that tracks how members fare on key votes and has been arguing to lawmakers that an increasing number of voters care about crypto.
'For these folks that are afraid of [crypto] people donating money, that's not really what we do. But what they should be concerned about is our voters voting differently, because these votes are up for grabs,' Mason Lynaugh, community director for Stand With Crypto, told NBC News. 'A lot of these people were not civically engaged before, and I don't know if the genie's going back in the bottle.'
Even though Democrats are far from united on the topic, the industry has made some key allies in the party.
'We are here to legislate, and again, to try to bring into compliance an economy that is largely outside the United States is uncontrollable at this point,' Gallego said. 'I think it's the responsibility of us as Congress to put down the rules of the road.'
Sen. Raphael Warnock, D-Ga., who also supports the GENIUS Act, said he voted for the bill because many of his constituents already use crypto.
'We're already using these products. And so from a public policy point of view, one of the questions for me, is, what will leave the consumers in a better place? So we clearly need some kind of regulatory structure,' Warnock told NBC news.
Asked if the industry is pumping too much money into elections, Warnock replied: 'I think there's too much money in our system whether you're talking about oil and gas or the gun industry, it's a serious democracy problem.'
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


New York Post
22 minutes ago
- New York Post
Gavin Newsom launches Substack to fight ‘disinformation'
California Gov. Gavin Newsom already had a podcast. Now he has a Substack, too. Newsom launched his own site Tuesday on the popular spot for independent journalists, calling it a way to break through 'the noise.' 'We have to flood the zone and continue to cut through the right-wing disinformation machine,' he wrote in the post that was accompanied by a video of the governor speaking. 'There's so much mis and disinformation out there, there's so much noise, I don't need to tell you that,' Newsom said. 'The question is, how do we break through all of that noise and engage in real conversations? And that's why I'm launching on Substack. I hope you'll follow me so we can continue to engage in a two-way conversation at this critical moment in our history.' Newsom kicked off his new project by sharing his Fox News Digital op-ed on Tuesday titled, 'Trump is trying to destroy our democracy. Do not let him.' He also posted an interview with Democratic strategist and TikToker Aaron Parnas. He told Parnas that joining new media platforms like Substack was 'foundational and fundamental' to Democratic strategy and outreach going forward and that his party must get more 'aggressive' with their messaging. Newsom launched his own podcast in March, 'This is Gavin Newsom,' where he's conversed with liberal allies but also pro-Trump figures like Charlie Kirk and Newt Gingrich. 3 Calif. Gov. Gavin Newsom's first conversation on Substack was with Democratic strategist and TikToker Aaron Parnas. AP The likely 2028 Democratic presidential candidate already has a high profile, but he's held the spotlight even more in recent weeks as California became the epicenter of the Trump administration's illegal immigration crackdown. Newsom has spoken out harshly against President Donald Trump's deployment of the National Guard and Marines to Los Angeles to quell unrest generated by anti-ICE protests. 'These are men and women trained in foreign combat, not domestic law enforcement. We honor their service and their bravery. But we do not want our streets militarized by our own Armed Forces,' Newsom wrote for Fox News Digital. 3 Newsom launched his new Substack on Tuesday. substack /@gavinnewsom 3 Newsom promoted his new platform to followers on X. X / @GavinNewsom 'With this act, President Trump has betrayed our soldiers, the American people, and our core traditions; soldiers are being ordered to patrol the very same American communities they swore to protect in wars overseas. The deployment of federal soldiers in L.A. doesn't protect our communities – it traumatizes them,' he wrote. Newsom and Attorney General Rob Bonta filed a lawsuit accusing Trump of overstepping his bounds by illegally deploying the National Guard to quell the unrest. Last week, a federal judge sided with California in his ruling and directed Trump to return control of National Guard troops to Newsom's command. 'Defendants are temporarily ENJOINED from deploying members of the California National Guard in Los Angeles,' U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer wrote in his ruling. 'Defendants are DIRECTED to return control of the California National Guard to Governor Newsom.' White House spokesperson Anna Kelly blasted the ruling as an 'abuse of power' that 'puts our brave federal officials in danger' and said the Trump administration would appeal the decision. A federal appeals court stayed the ruling and will hear arguments Tuesday to review whether Trump can keep using California's National Guard to protect immigration enforcement officials and quell protests.


San Francisco Chronicle
32 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Firms led by US military veterans deliver aid in Africa and Gaza, alarming humanitarian groups
ON A PLANE OVER UPPER NILE STATE, South Sudan (AP) — Swooping low over the banks of a Nile River tributary, an aid flight run by retired American military officers released a stream of food-stuffed sacks over a town emptied by fighting in South Sudan, a country wracked by conflict. Last week's air drop was the latest in a controversial development — private contracting firms led by former U.S. intelligence officers and military veterans delivering aid to some of the world's deadliest conflict zones, in operations organized with governments that are combatants in the conflicts. The moves are roiling the global aid community, which warns of a more militarized, politicized and profit-seeking trend that could allow governments or combatants to use life-saving aid to control hungry civilian populations and advance war aims. In South Sudan and Gaza, two for-profit U.S. companies led by American national security veterans are delivering aid in operations backed by the South Sudanese and Israeli governments. The American contractors say they're putting their security, logistics and intelligence skills to work in relief operations. Fogbow, the U.S. company that carried out last week's air drops over South Sudan, says it aims to be a 'humanitarian' force. 'We've worked for careers, collectively, in conflict zones. And we know how to essentially make very difficult situations work,' said Fogbow President Michael Mulroy, a retired CIA officer and former senior defense official in the first Trump administration, speaking on the airport tarmac in Juba, South Sudan's capital. But the U.N. and many leading non-profit groups say U.S. contracting firms are stepping into aid distribution with little transparency or humanitarian experience, and, crucially, without commitment to humanitarian principles of neutrality and operational independence in war zones. 'What we've learned over the years of successes and failures is there's a difference between a logistics operation and a security operation, and a humanitarian operation,' said Scott Paul, a director at Oxfam America. ''Truck and chuck' doesn't help people,' Paul said. 'It puts people at risk.' 'We don't want to replace any entity' Fogbow took journalists up in a cargo plane to watch their team drop 16 tons of beans, corn and salt for South Sudan's Upper Nile state town of Nasir. Residents fled homes there after fighting erupted in March between the government and opposition groups. Mulroy acknowledged the controversy over Fogbow's aid drops, which he said were paid for by the South Sudanese government. Shared roots in Gaza and U.S. intelligence Fogbow was in the spotlight last year for its proposal to use barges to bring aid to Gaza, where Israeli restrictions were blocking overland deliveries. The United States focused instead on a U.S. military effort to land aid via a temporary pier. Since then, Fogbow has carried out aid drops in Sudan and South Sudan, east African nations where wars have created some of the world's gravest humanitarian crises. Fogbow says ex-humanitarian officials are also involved, including former U.N. World Food Program head David Beasley, who is a senior adviser. Operating in Gaza, meanwhile, Safe Reach Solutions, led by a former CIA officer and other retired U.S. security officers, has partnered with the Gaza Humanitarian Foundation, a U.S.-backed nonprofit that Israel says is the linchpin of a new aid system to wrest control from the U.N., which Israel says has been infiltrated by Hamas, and other humanitarian groups. Starting in late May, the American-led operation in Gaza has distributed food at fixed sites in southern Gaza, in line with Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's stated plan to use aid to concentrate the territory's more than 2 million people in the south, freeing Israel to fight Hamas elsewhere. Aid workers fear it's a step toward another of Netanyahu's public goals, removing Palestinians from Gaza in 'voluntary' migrations. Since then, several hundred Palestinians have been killed and hundreds more wounded in near daily shootings as they tried to reach aid sites, according to Gaza's Health Ministry. Witnesses say Israeli troops regularly fire heavy barrages toward the crowds in an attempt to control them. The Israeli military has denied firing on civilians. It says it fired warning shots in several instances, and fired directly at a few 'suspects' who ignored warnings and approached its forces. It's unclear who is funding the new operation in Gaza. No donor has come forward, and the U.S. says it's not funding it. In response to criticism over its Gaza aid deliveries, Safe Reach Solutions said it has former aid workers on its team with 'decades of experience in the world's most complex environments' who bring "expertise to the table, along with logisticians and other experts.' South Sudan's people ask: Who's gett ing our aid drops? Last week's air drop over South Sudan went without incident, despite fighting nearby. A white cross marked the drop zone. Only a few people could be seen. Fogbow contractors said there were more newly returned townspeople on previous drops. Fogbow acknowledges glitches in mastering aid drops, including one last year in Sudan's South Kordofan region that ended up with too-thinly-wrapped grain sacks split open on the ground. After gaining independence from Sudan in 2011, South Sudan has struggled to emerge from a civil war that killed nearly 400,000 people. Rights groups say its government is one of the world's most corrupt, and until now has invested little in quelling the dire humanitarian crisis. South Sudan said it engaged Fogbow for air drops partly because of the Trump administration's deep cuts in U.S. Agency for International Development funding. Humanitarian Minister Albino Akol Atak said the drops will expand to help people in need throughout the country. But two South Sudanese groups question the government's motives. 'We don't want to see a humanitarian space being abused by military actors ... under the cover of a food drop," said Edmund Yakani, head of the Community Empowerment for Progress Organization, a local civil society group. Asked about suspicions the aid drops were helping South Sudan's military aims, Fogbow's Mulroy said the group has worked with the U.N. World Food Program to make sure 'this aid is going to civilians.' 'If it wasn't going to civilians, we would hope that we would get that feedback, and we would cease and desist,' Mulroy said. In a statement, WFP country director Mary-Ellen McGroarty said: 'WFP is not involved in the planning, targeting or distribution of food air-dropped' by Fogbow on behalf of South Sudan's government, citing humanitarian principles. A 'business-driven model' Longtime humanitarian leaders and analysts are troubled by what they see as a teaming up of warring governments and for-profit contractors in aid distribution. When one side in a conflict decides where and how aid is handed out, and who gets it, 'it will always result in some communities getting preferential treatment,' said Jan Egeland, executive director of the Norwegian Refugee Council. Sometimes, that set-up will advance strategic aims, as with Netanyahu's plans to move Gaza's civilians south, Egeland said. The involvement of soldiers and security workers, he added, can make it too 'intimidating' for some in need to even try to get aid. Until now, Western donors always understood those risks, Egeland said. But pointing to the Trump administration's backing of the new aid system in Gaza, he asked: 'Why does the U.S. ... want to support what they have resisted with every other war zone for two generations?' Mark Millar, who has advised the U.N. and Britain on humanitarian matters in South Sudan and elsewhere, said involving private military contractors risks undermining the distinction between humanitarian assistance and armed conflict. Private military contractors 'have even less sympathy for a humanitarian perspective that complicates their business-driven model," he said. 'And once let loose, they seem to be even less accountable.'


USA Today
33 minutes ago
- USA Today
More than 600 local police agencies are partnering with ICE: See if yours is one of them
More than 600 local police agencies are partnering with ICE: See if yours is one of them Following a weekend of nationwide protests and the Army's "Grand Military Parade and Celebration," President Donald Trump directed U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials to ramp up efforts to detain and deport migrants from large Democratic-run cities including Los Angeles, Chicago and New York. Trump called for the expanded deportation June 15 post on Truth Social. Since Trump took office, the average number of people held in immigration detention centers has increased 25%, according to the Department of Homeland Security. The uptick in detentions comes against a backdrop of a divisive national debate over immigration enforcement. Trump deployed California's National Guard to Los Angeles to quell protests over immigration policies and ICE arrests. California is one of six states with laws preventing local and state agencies from partnering with ICE to enforce federal immigration laws. Under the California Values Act – the state's sanctuary law – state and local police are prohibited from investigating, detaining, or deporting its residents for purposes of immigration enforcement, according to CalMatters. The law does not prevent the federal government from deporting undocumented residents living in California, but rather limits local and state police cooperation with federal immigration officers. More than 600 state and local agencies throughout the country have signed agreements to work with ICE through the 287(g) Program. Depending on the type of agreement, local law enforcement can question inmates about their immigration status, serve warrants or work on task forces. As of early June, there are 629 agreements between local law enforcement and ICE. Agencies in Florida represent 43% of total agreements, followed by Texas with 14%. Which counties are working with ICE? Search below The ICE 287(g) agreements have three models local law enforcement can choose to participate in: Jail Enforcement Model: The model is designed to identify and process undocumented residents – with pending criminal charges – who are arrested by state or local law enforcement agencies. Task Force Model: Allows local law enforcement to enforce limited immigration authority with ICE oversight during their routine police duties. Local agents are supposed to receive 40 hours of online training to participate. Warrant Service Officer program: Allows ICE to train, certify and authorize state and local law enforcement officers to serve and execute administrative warrants on undocumented persons in the agency's jail. How long has the program been around? Local law enforcement have been participating in the 287(g) Program since 2002. The Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act of 1996 authorizes the collaboration between federal immigration authorities and local police agencies. In its beginning years, the program focused on detaining and deporting undocumented immigrants with criminal records, CBS reported. As the program expanded, local agencies began using the partnership to detain as many undocumented immigrants as possible, according to CBS. There were no new agreements made between December 2020 and February 2025 during former President Biden's administration. A record number of state and local agencies have signed onto the program since Trump took office this year. Pushback against the program Critics say the program harms immigrant communities. ProPublica reported that the 287(g) Program has been accused of increasing racial profiling and creating fear among immigrant communities who may be reluctant to report crimes. The program has faced criticism from the federal government as well. A 2018 internal watchdog report from the Department of Homeland Security concluded that the program does not adequately train and supervise local agencies. And a 2021 report from the Government Accountability Office said ICE failed to establish performance goals for the program such as measuring oversight of local law enforcement agency partners, according to the American Immigration Council. An investigation by the Department of Justice found that local law enforcement in North Carolina and Arizona engaged in patterns of constitutional violations after entering an agreement with the 287(g) program. Immigration judges cooperating with ICE: What to know about recent arrests Map: Where anti-ICE, Trump protests have occurred around the US CONTRIBUTING Thao Nguyen, Jeanine Santucci, Pam Dankins, Joey Garrison, Davis Winkie, USA TODAY