Republicans declared it 'crypto' week in the House. It's not going as planned
The procedural snafu brought the House's so-called 'crypto week' to a standstill — and dealt a blow to President Donald Trump, who had strongly urged Republicans to pass the bills as part of his push to make the U.S. the ' crypto capital of the world.'
A group of 13 Republicans joined all Democrats in opposition to a procedural vote needed to bring the crypto bills to the floor. Speaker Mike Johnson told reporters it was just part of 'legislative process' and that negotiations were underway between the House, Senate and White House. He suggested they could try again Tuesday evening.
'We expected there might be some 'no' votes, but we thought it was important to put it on the floor to advance it because time's of the essence on this,' Johnson said. 'So stay tuned. We'll have lots of discussions over the next few hours.'
But just hours later, House leadership canceled votes for the remainder of the day, potentially throwing the crypto bills into limbo.
The stalled legislation includes a Senate-passed bill to regulate a form of cryptocurrency known as stablecoins, along with far more sweeping measures aiming to address cryptocurrency market structure. Another bill would prohibit the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency.
The disagreement blocking the bills from advancing centers on how the three bills would be passed. Johnson explained that 'some of these guys insist that it needs to be all in one package.' Packaging the bills would require them to be sent back to the Senate, since the chamber has only taken up one of the three bills so far.
Rep. Glenn Thompson of Pennsylvania, a Republican co-sponsor of one of the cryptocurrency bills, told reporters that some of the Republicans wanted to package the bills together due to them 'not having a lot of faith in the Senate moving our legislation.'
Trump and Republican leaders have called on the House to pass the bills individually, so that the stablecoin legislation can get to Trump's desk for his signature before an August recess. The stablecoin legislation took the Senate nearly a month and half to pass, and the more sweeping market structure legislation is expected to take even longer.
In a post Tuesday morning on social media, Trump called on Republicans to advance the crypto bills that afternoon, saying that 'all Republicans should vote 'yes.'' Asked Tuesday evening about the stalled legislation, Trump told reporters that Republicans who voted against it wanted it to be 'stronger.'
Trump has pushed hard for the passage of the stablecoin legislation, with him and his family standing to profit from a boost to stablecoins. They hold a significant stake in World Liberty Financial, a crypto project that recently launched its own stablecoin, USD1.
The stablecoin legislation passed by the Senate includes a provision that bars members of Congress and their families from profiting off stablecoins. But notably, that prohibition does not apply to the president or his family, even as Trump builds what some are calling a crypto empire from the White House.
The cryptocurrency industry hopes the bills as a whole will aid in their push for legitimacy and increasing consumer trust. And road bumps like those seen Tuesday may not have been expected after spending heavily in the 2024 election to elect a large number of crypto-friendly lawmakers.
Faryar Shirzad, chief policy officer of Coinbase, the nation's largest cryptocurrency exchange, said in a statement after the failed procedural vote that 'every few steps forward there's inevitably a step back.'
'It's in these moments we'll see who is trying to get pro-crypto legislation done and who is not,' Shirzad said on social media.
Passage of the bills could have implications on the 2026 midterm races. Fairshake, a crypto super political action committee, said that it and its affiliated organizations already have more than $140 million in the bank ready to spend on midterm races.
'The voters last year were clear — Congress needs to stop playing politics with crypto and finally pass responsible regulation,' said Josh Vlasto, spokesperson for Fairshake. 'We are building an aggressive, targeted strategy for next year to ensure that pro-crypto voices are heard in key races across the country.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
15 minutes ago
Minnesota lawmaker to resign after being convicted of felony burglary
A Minnesota state senator convicted of burglary for breaking into her estranged stepmother's house plans to resign by early August, her lawyer said Monday. Democratic state Sen. Nicole Mitchell has faced calls from fellow Minnesota lawmakers for her immediate resignation since her conviction on Friday. The jury deliberated for three hours before finding her guilty of first-degree burglary and possession of burglary tools. The 51-year-old lawmaker needs two weeks to wrap up her legislative duties and secure health insurance for her son by the time of her Aug. 4 resignation, her lawyer wrote in the statement. Mitchell represents a Democratic-leaning suburban district outside the Twin Cities in a closely divided state Senate. After the verdict last week, Democratic Senate Majority Leader Erin Murphy Mitchell said that Mitchell told colleagues that she planned to resign if convicted, 'and I expect her to follow through on that pledge.' Senate Republic Leader Mark Johnson released a statement Monday pushing for Mitchell to resign immediately instead of waiting two weeks. 'Senator Mitchell was convicted of two felonies; she doesn't get to give the Senate two weeks' notice,' he wrote in a statement Monday. 'The only reason Mitchell is still in office is because Democrats needed her vote to pass their agenda and refused to hold her accountable during session.' Mitchell was arrested on April 22, 2024, and told police that she broke into her stepmother's home because the stepmother refused to give her items like her late father's ashes and other belongings. Mitchell's father and stepmother Carol Mitchell had been married for 40 years. Later on the stand, the lawmaker backtracked her statement and said she had not intended to take anything and wanted to check on the well-being of her stepmother, who has Alzheimer's disease.
The Hill
16 minutes ago
- The Hill
Linda McMahon's answer on Holocaust denialism should scare us
Questioner: 'Madam Secretary, does refusing to hire a Holocaust denier as a member of Harvard's history department faculty count as an 'ideological litmus test?'' Witness: ' I believe that there should be diversity of viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campuses.' Had I just heard that correctly? Had Education Secretary Linda McMahon really just said Holocaust denialism was just a diverse view point? I was shocked. But just recently, this exchange really happened. I sat across the dais from McMahon in the House Education and Workforce Committee room. On the desk before me was the April 11 letter sent to Harvard by the Trump administration, laying out their outrageous demands of the university in order to retain their federal funding. Contained in that letter is the phrase which has become a rallying cry for the Trump administration in their crusade against Harvard: 'viewpoint diversity.' This is the one diversity program that the administration has deemed not only important, but imperative to future of higher education. But although McMahon has been beating the drum loudly on the lack of 'diverse viewpoints' on colleges campuses, she's been vague on what that means and whether the administration has the authority to enforce viewpoint diversity on campus. In her hearing before the Senate the previous day, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) pressed the secretary on this very question. Beyond saying that college faculties need more conservative voices, she wasn't able to clearly articulate the powers that the federal government has in that realm, nor was she able to clearly define what viewpoint diversity means, nor the limits that should be recognized. So I asked. I asked if, under the demands listed in the letter, the Harvard government department would be compelled to hire faculty that believe the 2020 election was stolen. I asked if Harvard Medical School would be required to hire immunologists that adhere to Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy's view on vaccine efficacy. McMahon's response was to bluster about free speech and multiple viewpoints on college campuses. She obfuscated and I pressed. It was at this point I asked, 'Madam Secretary, does refusing to hire a Holocaust denier as a member of Harvard's history department faculty count as an 'ideological litmus test?'' She responded: 'I believe that there should be diversity of viewpoints relative to teachings and opinions on campuses.' There are a number of deeply disturbing aspects to that answer. I could write at length about the implications that widely discredited and — in the case of the third example, deeply offensive and dangerously ignorant — conspiracy theories should have a place in academic institutions that are at the global forefront of research. There is also much to be said about that fact that an administration which claims to be fighting against antisemitism does not immediately condemn Holocaust denial and insist that it does not have a place or a platform in higher education. But the pressing issue at stake here is that the administration cannot identify a limit to such viewpoint diversity. If a candidate for a position in the government department has a sincere political belief that the 2020 election was stolen, should they be hired in the interest of 'viewpoint diversity' although they would not meet the academic standards required for a serious candidate in political science? If they are not hired by the school, does the federal government have the power to punish the university? What does this mean for current faculty who disagree with the administration? 'Ideological vetting' is already happening to the school's prospective international students; it is not a stretch to imagine that that vetting might extend to faculty and domestic students too. Freedom of speech and freedom of dissent are among the most sacred and fundamental tenets of our democracy, enshrined in the very first amendment of the Bill of Rights. Universities are the arenas where those freedoms are exercised; places where ideas are tested and debated and critical thought is encouraged. History teaches us that government interference in and crackdown on colleges and universities is a tactic used by authoritarian governments to quash dissent. That is not to say that there aren't problems on college campuses today, and there should always be an unwavering commitment to student safety and wellbeing. But political dissent is not a crime. Dissent is a function of a healthy and vibrant democracy, and higher education is there to teach students how to think, not what to think. No matter where you fall on the political spectrum, all Americans must understand what is at stake in the administration's battle with Harvard. We should all be concerned about the federal government's attempt to force compliance from an independent institution, particularly one tasked with educating our young people and producing the world's preeminent research. If you love what makes this country great — freedom of speech, the right to dissent, the defense of civil rights — then you must know: we have a lot to lose if we do not fight for it.
Axios
16 minutes ago
- Axios
Colorado's economy delivers mixed results in mid-2025
Colorado's latest economic data is sending mixed signals at the halfway mark of 2025. By the numbers: Metro Denver's inflation rate through June ticked up to 2.3% year-over-year, nudging past May's 2.2%, per a new report from the University of Colorado Boulder's Leeds School of Business and the Secretary of State's office. That's still below the national average of 2.7% in June, which marked the swiftest pace since February as Trump-era tariffs began taking a bigger bite out of the economy. Stunning stat: New business filings statewide surged to 51,200 in the second quarter of 2025, up 19% year-over-year — marking Colorado's strongest second quarter on record, according to Brian Lewandowski with the Leeds School of Business. The intrigue: It's unclear what's behind the spike or which sectors are seeing the most new ventures. But Colorado Secretary of State Jena Griswold floated a theory: a mix of entrepreneurial spirit and financial pressure. Some Coloradans may be looking to supplement income "after noticing that their money at the grocery store isn't going as far as it used to," Griswold told reporters Monday. Zoom out: Job growth across Colorado rose to 0.4% last month, the state's fourth-highest rate on record. Labor force participation held strong at 67.7% — sixth-highest nationally. Yes, but: Home prices in Colorado continued to climb last month — up 2.3% year-over-year. What they're saying: The state's economy "has remained resilient," Griswold said in a statement. "But many Coloradans struggle with the cost of living, and Trump's new law will increase the cost of energy, health care and more," the Democrat warned, referring to the president's " big, beautiful bill." What we're watching: Colorado's resilience could soon face a tougher test.
