Inside the U.S. Senate chamber, when the electronic screen finally froze at 68 votes in favor and 30 against, a historic moment was born. The stablecoin regulation bill named the (GENIUS Act) broke the ice amid controversy, becoming the first significant cryptocurrency legislation passed by the U.S. Senate. However, under the bill's spotlight, a sensitive name was repeatedly mentioned—Trump family. This marks a key step for the U.S. in the field of crypto asset regulation, but it also casts a huge question mark in the quagmire of conflicts of interest.
The full name of the (GENIUS Act)—(Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability to Promote Better Ledger Economy Act)—clearly outlines its core mission. The bill aims to build a federal-level stablecoin regulatory framework, requiring issuers to strictly adhere to the 'one-to-one full reserve' principle, ensuring that each circulating stablecoin is backed by equivalent dollar assets.
At the same time, the bill strengthened consumer rights protection provisions and established strict anti-money laundering compliance mechanisms. Republican Senator Bill Hagerty, as a key proponent, could hardly contain his excitement in his speech before the vote, thanking his colleagues for their support and believing that this laid the foundation for the U.S. to establish rule dominance in the digital asset field.
However, a deliberate 'blank' in the bill text instantly ignited a political powder keg. It failed to include any provisions to restrict the current president and their family members from profiting significantly from stablecoin issuance and related business activities. This oversight immediately drew fierce criticism from Democrats.
Criticism is sharply directed at the Trump family. According to public disclosures, the Trump family-associated World Liberty Financial project reportedly earned over $57 million last year through a series of token sales. When the (GENIUS Act) was passed in the Senate, providing federal legitimacy and a regulatory framework for the stablecoin market, the project could potentially enjoy policy dividends, with its value and influence possibly further expanding.
Democratic senators sharply pointed out that this constitutes a blatant conflict of interest: the president and their family are actively positioning themselves and profiting from the cryptocurrency field, while the regulatory rules are avoiding crucial provisions for separating interests. This involves not only moral hazards but also undermines the public's trust in the foundation of legislative fairness. Opponents argue that this exposes a hidden path of benefits reserved for specific political families beneath the seemingly rigorous financial regulatory rules of the bill.
Although the (GENIUS Act) has successfully passed the Senate, the legislative journey ahead is far from smooth, with its fate ultimately resting in the hands of the House of Representatives. The House is not a blank slate; its Financial Services Committee has already taken the initiative in April to propose its own version of a stablecoin regulation plan. Although the two bills share a consensus on core objectives—establishing a federal regulatory framework, emphasizing reserve transparency, and consumer protection—there are significant differences in specific regulatory scales and power distribution.
The House version is considered to be potentially stricter on certain provisions, particularly regarding the entry qualifications and ongoing regulatory requirements for issuing institutions. How the two chambers will bridge their differences and coordinate will be a legislative tug-of-war full of gamesmanship. Especially considering the current complex political landscape in the House and the pressures of an election year, any provisions involving the potential interests of the Trump family are bound to become the focal point of debate and an insurmountable obstacle.
When the (GENIUS Act) seeks to establish order in the chaotic stablecoin market under the name 'Genius,' its meticulously designed framework should have won applause. However, the deliberate silence in the bill text regarding the business interests of the presidential family has stirred a political maelstrom far beyond the legislation itself.
The simultaneous advancement of the Trump family's $57 million earnings and the regulatory bill, overlapping in time and space, lends irrefutable reality to the doubts about 'conflicts of interest.' This is not just a disagreement about stablecoin technical rules, but a severe questioning of whether the U.S. legislative process can still uphold the ancient and precious principle of 'public interest first.'
As lawmakers strive to pave the way for rules in the digital dollar era, how can they ensure that this path itself is not eroded by political self-interest? In the upcoming heated debates in the House of Representatives, this question will weigh more heavily on every member's mind than any technical provisions.