Stablecoin Showdown: US Senate Advances Legislation Amid Growing Rifts

Washington finally moves—but not without drama. The Senate’s latest stablecoin push reveals deepening divides as regulators scramble to tame the wild west of crypto-pegged assets.

Behind the bipartisan veneer? A turf war brewing between old-school finance hawks and DeFi disruptors. The bill’s fine print hints at tighter issuer controls, sparking fury from crypto-native circles.

One banking lobbyist quipped, ’They’ll regulate stablecoins right after they fix the national debt.’ Meanwhile, Tether’s lawyers are already drafting their response.

Two Distinct Cryptocurrency Bills

French Hill noted that while the two bills are largely similar, they differ in certain aspects. One major difference lies in the House of Representatives’ stricter “reciprocity” conditions for foreign stablecoin issuers. According to the bill, a stablecoin issuer based abroad must comply with a regulatory regime recognized by the United States to operate in the country. Hill indicated that this clause particularly concerns companies like Tether, which issues the globally significant token USDT.

Hill remarked, “You can be registered in the U.S. and be fully compliant under the stablecoin law, or you must be located in a jurisdiction recognized by the U.S., adhering to a similar regime and practice.” He believes that the House bill offers a clearer roadmap regarding which state or federal authority will regulate stablecoin issuers.

Additionally, the House and Senate are developing differing approaches concerning the participation of non-financial entities in the stablecoin market. The House bill allows some publicly traded companies to issue stablecoins under the supervision of specific regulatory authorities. In contrast, the Senate version completely prohibits some publicly traded companies from issuing stablecoins.

Political and Legal Developments

Regarding the progression of the bill, Hill expressed skepticism about stablecoin regulation passing more easily through Congress than other crypto legislative efforts. He emphasized that the long-stalled Senate stablecoin bill has now made significant progress, with recent work on the “Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act” having crucial implications for the future of regulation.

Hill conveyed his Optimism that the House would also fulfill its responsibilities. According to the US legislative process, if bills on the same subject are prepared (in two different chambers), the Senate and House must agree on the same text. If the Senate accepts the bill as is, the House must either vote on it or continue its version. If different versions are approved, a reconciled bill must again be approved for the final law.

Senate votes and Banking Committee evaluations reportedly saw broad bipartisan support. However, some Democratic members expressed concerns that the bill does not sufficiently address illicit activities and does not prevent public officials from issuing stablecoins. Hill admitted that President Trump’s interest in crypto projects politicized legal discussions, complicating progress. With significant time until the midterm elections in November 2026, Democrats, following the last defeat, may not want to risk losing votes by firmly opposing cryptocurrencies again.

Intense work is underway on stablecoin regulation in both chambers. The current process emphasizes the need to harmonize the bills, clarify regulatory areas, and eliminate uncertainties regarding company roles. The size of the stablecoin market and its potential impact on the financial system are attracting the attention of regulators and lawmakers. If the final regulation is enacted, the US is expected to assume a more active role in the global digital asset market.