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

La Liga Team Bets $1 Million Against Themselves Before Match: Does Using Prediction Markets for Insurance Comply with Sports Regulations?

A Spanish La Liga club, reportedly Osasuna, purchased insurance against relegation and was linked to a transaction of over $1 million on the prediction market platform Kalshi, betting against its own victory in a crucial season-ending match. While Osasuna confirmed buying €1.2 million insurance for a potential €6 million payout in case of relegation through broker Howden, it did not confirm involvement with Kalshi. The reported trade involved intermediaries like Game Point Capital and Greenlight Commodities, with quant firm Susquehanna as the counterparty. This incident highlights the blurring line between financial hedging and gambling in prediction markets. Such markets allow trading on future event outcomes, like sports results. In the US, Kalshi operates as a regulated event contract market under the CFTC. However, Spanish authorities recently initiated penalties against Kalshi and Polymarket, considering their activities unlicensed gambling. The case raises core questions about prediction markets: who can trade, how insider information is handled, and whether participants can influence outcomes, especially in sports where results are human-driven. While leagues like La Liga and Serie A have partnered with Polymarket in North America, the regulatory clash and potential for conflicts of interest, as seen in this club's alleged transaction, present significant challenges as prediction markets evolve toward institutional risk management.

Foresight News30m ago

La Liga Team Bets $1 Million Against Themselves Before Match: Does Using Prediction Markets for Insurance Comply with Sports Regulations?

Foresight News30m ago

From Shouting 150 Dollars to Liquidating HYPE in Just Three Days, How Much Credibility Does Arthur Hayes Have Left?

How much of Arthur Hayes's market credibility remains? Recently, the "godfather of crypto perpetual swaps" and BitMEX co-founder has faced public criticism, including accusations from on-chain investigator ZachXBT about creating exit liquidity for his followers. Starting last week, Hayes executed multiple sudden sell-offs. He had repeatedly publicly predicted the HYPE token would reach $150. After a $100,000 bet defending Hyperliquid on June 1st, he announced just three days later that he had completely sold his HYPE and NEAR holdings, successfully exiting near the peak. He also sold ZEC and WLD. His sale of WLD appeared to be a classic "pump and dump" maneuver. On June 3rd, he publicly set a $10 target for WLD, causing its price to surge over 35%. By June 6th, he announced he had sold his WLD, citing "anomalous" SpaceX pre-IPO price action, which triggered a sharp price drop. On June 9th, Hayes published a lengthy article explaining his actions, citing factors like rising energy costs and a potential AI bubble burst. Consequently, his family office, Maelstrom, now holds positions in US energy producers and only core crypto assets BTC and ETH, having sold AI-related stocks and non-core cryptocurrencies. This pattern is not new. In 2025, he similarly touted HYPE before selling it at what turned out to be a cycle peak, only to repurchase it at the next cycle's low. Similar scenarios played out with tokens like ETHFI and ENA. Long-term observers have developed a strategy: ignore Hayes's public statements but closely monitor his on-chain actions—be cautious following his buys, but decisively follow his sells. If he continues these tactics, especially as seen with the WLD case, his market credibility risks being permanently damaged. As Hayes himself admitted in his latest article, "I remain an unapologetic gambler."

marsbit48m ago

From Shouting 150 Dollars to Liquidating HYPE in Just Three Days, How Much Credibility Does Arthur Hayes Have Left?

marsbit48m ago

Fundraising is Like a Strange Dance: The 'Absurd Drama' of Silicon Valley Founders' Capital Raises

The article details a series of absurd and revealing anecdotes shared by Silicon Valley founders about their venture capital fundraising experiences, sparked by Greg Isenberg's story of pitching to a sleeping a16z partner. Founders describe surreal pitch meetings: one faced a barefoot, peanut-eating investor who offered triple the requested amount after 30 seconds; another performed a pitch in a VC's parked car; a founder discovered his audience understood no English beyond "yes." These stories highlight the often irrational and performative nature of fundraising. Beyond the absurdity, darker power imbalances are exposed. Stories include investors suggesting founders fire co-founders for their equity, blatant market misjudgments, disrespectful behavior from LPs, and discriminatory remarks. A debate also emerges around "Sequoia's" practice of splitting a round into two valuations. However, the thread isn't solely critical. Positive counter-narratives celebrate supportive VCs who offered crucial advice during crises, respected founders' timelines, and showed simple gestures of respect—like a partner personally fetching coffee before a major pitch. Ultimately, the collective sharing acts as a pressure release, illustrating that fundraising is a complex dance of power, trust, and sometimes sheer theater. It underscores that beyond capital, mutual respect and integrity remain the most enduring foundations of the founder-investor relationship.

marsbit1h ago

Fundraising is Like a Strange Dance: The 'Absurd Drama' of Silicon Valley Founders' Capital Raises

marsbit1h ago

Trading

Spot
Futures
活动图片