Stablecoin bill clears House after GOP revolt, heads to Trump's desk
Lawmakers voted 308-122 to pass the GENIUS Act following a tumultuous 'crypto week' in the chamber that saw competing GOP factions bring the House floor to a standstill for two days.
Twelve Republicans voted against the measure while 102 Democrats voted 'yes.'
The bill regulating dollar-backed digital tokens now heads to Trump's desk, where he has indicated he is eager to sign it.
The legislation's future appeared in jeopardy less than 24 hours earlier.
A group of hardline Republicans tanked a procedural vote on a trio of crypto bills Tuesday, freezing the floor.
President Trump struck a deal to secure their support the next day, but several holdouts remained on Wednesday, as the House attempted once again to adopt a rule governing debate on the bills.
The agreement Trump had reached with the hardliners also prompted new backlash from members of the House Financial Services Committee.
The deal sought to add provisions from the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, which aims to bar the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC), to a broader crypto framework called the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act.
Earlier Wednesday, the House voted 294-134 to pass the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. The anti-CBDC measure is up for consideration next.
After hours of deliberation on Wednesday — during which the rule vote remained open and the number of 'no' votes from hardliners continued to grow — GOP leadership reached a deal to add the anti-CBDC provisions to the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA).
Including the provisions in the must-pass legislation would put them on track to reach Trump's desk, assuming they don't get stripped out of the bill as it weaves its way through Congress later this year.
The agreement convinced most of the remaining holdouts to switch their 'no' votes on the rule to 'yes,' allowing it to pass after more than nine hours. It easily surpassed the previous record for longest vote in the chamber, which the House set just two weeks earlier during consideration of the GOP's 'big, beautiful bill.'
The only Republican 'no' vote that remained when they finally closed the vote late Wednesday night was Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.).
With the successful adoption of the rule, lawmakers were able to unfreeze the floor and unlock consideration of the crypto bills, including the GENIUS Act.
The final passage of the stablecoin bill represents a key win for the crypto industry, which has long sought legislation to provide greater regulatory clarity.
Trump, who has become a key ally of the industry in his second term, had urged House lawmakers to quickly pass a 'clean' bill, frustrating hopes of tying it to crypto market structure legislation.
Some lawmakers had hoped to tie the two bills together in order to allow the House to put its stamp on crypto legislation and ensure Congress doesn't lose momentum before getting to market structure.
Market structure legislation, which seeks to split up oversight of the industry between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission, is considered the centerpiece of crypto regulation.
The Senate has moved much slower on market structure legislation, frustrating the House. However, the upper chamber appears poised to soon release its own version of the bill.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
NY Fed survey finds easier access to auto loans, mortgage refinancing
By Michael S. Derby (Reuters) -U.S. households fared far better when applying for credit for mortgage refinancing or auto loans in June, new figures on credit access from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York show. The bank said Monday that rejected applications for mortgage refinancing dropped to 15% in June, versus 42% in February, which was the worst rejection-rate month in data that goes back to the fall of 2013. The rejection rate for auto loans also retreated, though less dramatically, to 7% in June from February's 14%. Overall credit applications and rejection rates during the last year largely remained steady, the bank said. The findings come from the bank's Survey of Consumer Expectations, which is most closely watched for its monthly readings on inflation expectations and the consumer mood. The bank said prospective borrowers who refrained from seeking credit as they expected their application to be rejected - so-called discouraged borrowers - stood at 7.2% of those surveyed in June, from 8.5% in February. Despite the retreat, the finding for last month came in above June 2024's 5.5%. According to the New York Fed, respondents saw a higher likelihood of facing an unexpected $2,000 expense in June, while the expected ability to cover such an outlay had also risen. Other information from the bank has shown some rising stress for overall consumer-debt levels, although overall, current conditions are pretty healthy. The auto and housing markets have faced high borrowing costs as the Federal Reserve has kept its rate target relatively high to help curb inflation. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
CNN
2 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: How much do Republicans care about the Epstein files? More than it might seem.
One of the biggest questions looming over President Donald Trump's second term right now is how much his supporters truly care about the Jeffrey Epstein files. The distinction between caring a lot vs. a little is critical. The former could mean a sustained problem for the president that bleeds into the midterm elections and affects turnout among his typically loyal base. The latter would mean this is likely nothing more than an ugly episode that ultimately fades away. So, now that we've had a chunk of time since the Justice Department released their controversial Epstein memo, how much do Republicans care about all this? A bevy of new polls show they're unhappy with how the Trump administration has handled this scandal and suggest it could be a persistent problem for the GOP. The base is about evenly split on the administration's actions, meaning there's a higher degree of skepticism than we almost ever see with Trump. And that might actually undersell the level of lingering GOP concern. Multiple polls show widespread dissatisfaction overall with the Trump administration's handling of the matter. Both Reuters-Ipsos and Quinnipiac University polling showed Americans overall disapproved of how the Trump team has handled this by huge margins: 54-17% in the former and 63-17% in the latter. (The former poll's question was about Trump personally, while the latter was about the administration more broadly.) So that's just 17% of Americans who said Trump and the administration have gotten this right, in both polls. The vast majority in that group are, of course, Republicans. But delving into the GOP-specific takeaways, the party is about evenly split — which is unusual on the Trump administration's actions. They leaned slightly towards approving the handling of the Epstein probe, 35-29% in the Reuters-Ipsos poll and 40-36% in the Quinnipiac poll. It's difficult to recall an issue on which Republicans were so lukewarm about major Trump actions. For instance, even shortly after the January 6, 2021, attack on the US Capitol, an event that led many to conclude that Trump's political career was over, a CNN poll showed Republicans approved of Trump's response by a strong margin: 63-32%. Being disenchanted isn't the same as ditching someone politically, however. Precisely how much people actually care is a critical point. There's some evidence that Republicans are downplaying the significance of this. A new CBS News-YouGov poll released Sunday, for instance, showed just 11% of Republicans said Epstein-related issues matter 'a lot' in their evaluation of Trump's presidency. That's compared to 36% of overall voters who said that. To the extent that's true, it would seem this is something Trump could move past. But polling has a persistent weakness: Respondents aren't always totally honest with themselves or pollsters. For instance, ahead of the 2022 midterm elections, the conventional wisdom was that Democrats' focus on democracy after the January 6 attack wasn't panning out and that the issue might even spur GOP turnout. The results ultimately showed that the issue was a significant benefit to Democrats, and election-denying Republicans did significantly worse than other Republicans. On Epstein, the CBS-YouGov poll suggests there are gaps between how much people say they care about the issue vs. what their other feelings or behavior reveals. While it showed 50% of Republicans said they were at least somewhat satisfied with the administration's Epstein actions, 83% of polled Republicans said the Justice Department should release all the information it has on Epstein — something the Trump administration has decidedly not done. (The administration late last week moved in court to unseal grand jury testimony. But that's only a small portion of the information, and much of it could remain secret.) The same poll also showed 90% of Republicans believed the Epstein files probably includes damaging information about wealthy or powerful people. Similarly, the Reuters-Ipsos poll showed Republicans said 55-17% that they believed the federal government is hiding information about Epstein's death, and 62-11% that it is hiding information about his clients. Those responses suggest Republicans aren't happy with the administration's meager disclosures, even if they're not looking to register that dissatisfaction when explicitly asked. The polling also reveals that even many of those who stand by Trump aren't doing so with a high degree of confidence. While the Reuters-Ipsos poll showed Republicans were about split on Trump's actions; only 11% 'strongly' approved of Trump's actions. And while half of Republicans in the CBS-YouGov poll said they were at least somewhat satisfied with the Trump administration's actions, just 10% were 'very' satisfied. That's only about 1 in 10 Republicans who look at this and say they completely sign off. The CBS-YouGov poll also showed MAGA Republicans were more likely to lean towards being satisfied (60% were at least 'somewhat' satisfied) than non-MAGA Republicans (41%). So are MAGA Republicans — the ones who have vociferously called for releasing more information on Epstein — more satisfied than their non-MAGA breathren? Or are they just feeling compelled to toe the Trump party line, at least somewhat? Regardless, those numbers don't mean this won't be a problem with a significant section of Trump's base. Those voters could sour on him, at least somewhat, perhaps in combination with other recent Trump actions they don't love, like on the war in Ukraine. A Wall Street Journal report last week on a letter Trump allegedly wrote for Epstein's 50th birthday back in 2003 appeared to unite even many Epstein-focused influencers behind Trump and against the media, their frequent common enemy. Trump denied he wrote the letter and has sued the Journal; his base seems to largely believe he's being railroaded. But that doesn't mean they're satisfied overall and ready to let the issue go. The data suggest that, for now, this remains a minefield for Trump.
Los Angeles Times
4 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Anti-Zionism is antisemitism — university leaders settle the question
For too long, the debate over antisemitism on college campuses has bogged down over whether anti-Zionism is antisemitism. Endless ink has been spilled over the distinction (or not) between the two. Last week, in their testimony to the House Committee on Education & Workforce, UC Berkeley Chancellor Rich Lyons, City University of New York Chancellor Félix V. Matos Rodríguez and Georgetown interim President Robert M. Groves cut through all this academic hairsplitting. 'Is denying the Jewish people their rights to self-determination … antisemitism? Yes or no?' asked Rep. Burgess Owens (R-Utah). All three university leaders replied simply and unequivocally: 'Yes.' The right to Jewish self-determination is a textbook definition of Zionism. The clarity with which the university officials pegged anti-Zionism as antisemitic is much-needed and long overdue. For years, progressives have raised consciousness about the need to recognize and repudiate bigoted dog whistles, microaggressions and misgendering. Yet many of those same progressives have been shockingly silent when it comes to decrying the macroaggressions of antisemitism that have become increasingly commonplace at anti-Israel protests. They've insisted that the now-familiar chants — 'From the river to the sea, Palestine shall be free!' 'We don't want no two states! We want all of '48!'— are not antisemitic, just anti-Zionist, with some who are Jewish concurring and providing cover. Yet just as there can be 'racism without racists' — that is, racist results without racist intents — so too can there be antisemitism without antisemites. Not all anti-Zionists are antisemites, but anti-Zionism, in its most basic form — denying to the Jewish people the right to self-determination, a right recognized as inherent to countless others, including Palestinians — is itself a form of antisemitism. Moreover, because anti-Zionism singles out the Jewish state alone for elimination — among the dozens of ethnonational or ethnoreligious states in the world, including myriad Islamic ones — that, too, makes it a form of antisemitism. Declaring anti-Zionism to be antisemitic, as the university leaders did, was an important development for the dignity of Jewish students, one that echoed and amplified a federal district court's preliminary injunction last year that said UCLA could not allow anti-Israel activists to exclude 'Jewish students … because they refused to denounce their faith,' of which Zionism was a central component, from parts of the campus, as happened during protests against the Israel-Hamas war. Zionism, at its core, is a belief in Israel's right to sovereignty as a Jewish state on part of the ancestral homeland of the Jewish people. That's a millennia-old article of faith for Judaism, as reflected, for example, in daily Jewish prayers, the Passover Seder and the ritual of breaking a glass at weddings. Those claiming the mantle of Zionism for far more aggressive or exclusionary aims don't change that core fact, nor do those treating Zionism as a uniquely malevolent expression of national liberation or nation-building. Recognizing anti-Zionism as a manifestation of antisemitism is an important step forward for combating the discrimination and ostracism that many Jewish students have experienced for expressing their support for Israel's right to exist in the face of those who call for its elimination. Such recognition, in turn, can help concentrate campus conflicts about Israel and Palestinians on what matters most: fruitful debate over Israel's actions (including its prosecution of the war in Gaza) rather than fruitless shouting matches over Israel's existence and neo-McCarthyite litmus tests ('Are you now or have you ever been a Zionist?'). As this happens, we would be well-served to cease and desist using the terms 'Zionism' and 'anti-Zionism,' except as historical artifacts. After all, 'Zionism' refers to the aspiration to create a nation that is now nearly 80 years old. And anti-Zionism thus perpetuates a fantasy that Israel's long-settled place among the family of nations is still open for debate. It isn't, any more than, say, the existence of Russia under Putin or the United States under Trump, however much we might deplore their policies, is open for debate. We owe the Berkeley, CUNY and Georgetown leaders a great debt of gratitude for helping to elevate the intractable campus conflicts about Israel and the Palestinians to a higher plane. Mark Brilliant is an associate professor of history and American studies at UC Berkeley.
