Trump accuses banks of undermining crypto bills as Clarity Act negotiations stall

ambcryptoPublished on 2026-03-03Last updated on 2026-03-03

Abstract

President Trump has accused U.S. banks of undermining crypto legislation, specifically the Clarity Act, warning that delays in market structure reforms could harm the U.S. position as a global digital asset hub and push innovation toward competitors like China. While the GENIUS Act, which established a federal framework for stablecoins, was passed last year, the broader Clarity Act—aimed at defining regulatory roles and providing legal certainty—has stalled in the Senate. Key disagreements include whether stablecoins should be allowed to offer yield-like rewards, with banks arguing such features risk financial stability and deposits, while the crypto industry warns that strict limits would stifle innovation. Trump framed the issue as a matter of economic competitiveness and criticized banks for record profits amid efforts to constrain crypto growth. The legislative delay continues as bipartisan negotiations struggle to resolve these disputes.

President Donald Trump on Tuesday accused U.S. banks of threatening key crypto legislation, warning that delays to broader market structure reforms could jeopardize the country’s push to become a global digital asset hub.

In a post, Trump said the “Genius Act is being threatened and undermined by the Banks” and called for swift passage of market structure legislation, including the Clarity Act.

He framed the issue as a matter of national competitiveness, arguing that inaction could push the crypto industry toward China and other jurisdictions.

The remarks come amid mounting friction in Washington over the next phase of U.S. crypto regulation.

Stablecoin law passed, broader reform stalled

Last year, Congress passed the GENIUS Act, establishing a federal framework for payment stablecoins and reserve requirements. The law was widely viewed as the first major step toward formalizing U.S. oversight of dollar-pegged digital assets.

Attention then shifted to the Clarity Act, a broader bill to define regulatory responsibilities among agencies and provide long-sought legal certainty for crypto markets.

However, negotiations on the Clarity Act have stalled in the Senate, with disagreements emerging over key provisions related to stablecoins and their interactions with the traditional banking system.

Yield debate at center of impasse

One of the central sticking points has been whether stablecoins should be permitted to offer interest-like rewards or yield mechanisms.

Banking groups have reportedly pushed for tighter restrictions, arguing that yield-bearing stablecoins could siphon deposits from traditional banks and pose financial stability risks.

Crypto industry participants, meanwhile, contend that excessive limits would undermine innovation and weaken U.S. competitiveness.

The dispute has complicated bipartisan efforts to finalize the bill, with scheduled markups delayed as lawmakers attempt to bridge the divide.

Trump’s post reflects frustration from pro-crypto advocates who view the legislative holdup as a threat to the momentum created by the GENIUS Act.

Framing the fight as economic competition

In his message, Trump linked the stalled negotiations to broader geopolitical competition, warning that regulatory hesitation could push digital asset development offshore. He also criticized banks for posting record profits while allegedly seeking to constrain crypto growth.

The Clarity Act is intended to provide clearer definitions for digital asset classification and oversight, reducing regulatory uncertainty that has weighed on U.S.-based firms. Without agreement on contentious provisions, however, the bill remains in legislative limbo.

For now, the GENIUS Act remains law. Still, the broader market structure framework that many industry participants see as essential for long-term growth has yet to advance.


Final Summary

  • Trump’s criticism highlights mounting political pressure as negotiations over the Clarity Act remain stalled in the Senate.
  • Disputes over stablecoin yield and bank competition appear to be central to the delay in broader crypto market structure reform.

Related Questions

QWhat is the main accusation that Trump made against U.S. banks regarding crypto legislation?

ATrump accused U.S. banks of threatening and undermining the Genius Act and broader market structure reforms, warning that their actions could jeopardize the country's push to become a global digital asset hub.

QWhat are the two main crypto bills mentioned in the article and what is their current status?

AThe two main bills are the GENIUS Act, which has been passed into law and establishes a federal framework for payment stablecoins, and the Clarity Act, a broader market structure bill whose negotiations have stalled in the Senate.

QWhat is the central sticking point causing the impasse in the Clarity Act negotiations?

AThe central sticking point is the debate over whether stablecoins should be permitted to offer interest-like rewards or yield mechanisms, with banking groups pushing for tighter restrictions and the crypto industry arguing against excessive limits.

QHow did President Trump frame the issue of the stalled crypto legislation?

ATrump framed the issue as a matter of national competitiveness, arguing that regulatory hesitation and inaction could push the crypto industry and digital asset development toward China and other offshore jurisdictions.

QWhat are the key concerns from banking groups regarding yield-bearing stablecoins?

ABanking groups argue that yield-bearing stablecoins could siphon deposits away from traditional banks and pose potential risks to financial stability.

Related Reads

OpenAI Post-Training Engineer Weng Jiayi Proposes a New Paradigm Hypothesis for Agentic AI

OpenAI engineer Weng Jiayi's "Heuristic Learning" experiments propose a new paradigm for Agentic AI, suggesting that intelligent agents can improve not just by training neural networks, but also by autonomously writing and refining code based on environmental feedback. In the experiment, a coding agent (powered by Codex) was tasked with developing and maintaining a programmatic strategy for the Atari game Breakout. Starting from a basic prompt, the agent iteratively wrote code, ran the game, analyzed logs and video replays to identify failures, and then modified the code. Through this engineering loop of "code-run-debug-update," it evolved a pure Python heuristic strategy that achieved a perfect score of 864 in Breakout and performed competitively with deep reinforcement learning (RL) algorithms in MuJoCo control tasks like Ant and HalfCheetah. This approach, termed Heuristic Learning (HL), contrasts with Deep RL. In HL, experience is captured in readable, modifiable code, tests, logs, and configurations—a software system—rather than being encoded solely into opaque neural network weights. This offers potential advantages in explainability, auditability for safety-critical applications, easier integration of regression tests to combat catastrophic forgetting, and more efficient sample use in early learning stages, as demonstrated in broader tests on 57 Atari games. However, the blog acknowledges clear limitations. Programmatic strategies struggle with tasks requiring long-horizon planning or complex perception (e.g., Montezuma's Revenge), areas where neural networks excel. The future vision is a hybrid architecture: specialized neural networks for fast perception (System 1), HL systems for rules, safety, and local recovery (also System 1), and LLM agents providing high-level feedback and learning from the HL system's data (System 2). The core proposition is that in the era of capable coding agents, a significant portion of an AI's learned experience could be maintained as an auditable, evolving software system.

marsbit25m ago

OpenAI Post-Training Engineer Weng Jiayi Proposes a New Paradigm Hypothesis for Agentic AI

marsbit25m ago

Your Claude Will Dream Tonight, Don't Disturb It

This article explores the recent phenomenon of AI companies increasingly using anthropomorphic language—like "thinking," "memory," "hallucination," and now "dreaming"—to describe machine learning processes. Focusing on Anthropic's newly announced "Dreaming" feature for its Claude Agent platform, the piece explains that this function is essentially an automated, offline batch processing of an agent's operational logs. It analyzes past task sessions to identify patterns, optimize future actions, and consolidate learnings into a persistent memory system, akin to a form of reinforcement learning and self-correction. The article draws parallels to similar features in other AI agent systems like Hermes Agent and OpenClaw, which also implement mechanisms for reviewing historical data, extracting reusable "skills," and strengthening long-term memory. It notes a key difference from human dreaming: these AI "dreams" still consume computational resources and user tokens. Further context is provided by discussing the technical challenges of managing AI "memory" or context, highlighting the computational expense of large context windows and innovations like Subquadratic's new model claiming drastically longer contexts. The core critique argues that this strategic use of human-centric vocabulary does more than market products; it subtly reshapes user perception. By framing algorithms with terms associated with consciousness, companies blur the line between tool and autonomous entity. This linguistic shift can influence user expectations, tolerance for errors, and even perceptions of responsibility when systems fail, potentially diverting scrutiny from the companies and engineers behind the technology. The article concludes by speculating that terms like "daydreaming" for predictive task simulation might be next, continuing this trend of embedding the idea of an "inner life" into computational processes.

marsbit27m ago

Your Claude Will Dream Tonight, Don't Disturb It

marsbit27m ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片