The U.S. Congress has once again shelved the vote on the (Guidance and Establishment of the U.S. Stablecoin National Innovation Act) (GENIUS Act), causing the stablecoin legislative path, originally seen as a compliance turning point, to fall back into uncertainty. This is not a mere technical issue; it is a deeply rooted entanglement of politics and interests that has transformed 'stablecoins' into 'political coins.'
The crux of this deadlock is not technical disagreement, but potential conflicts of interest arising from former President Trump and his family's deep involvement in the cryptocurrency space. Thus, advancing the regulatory bill is no longer just about discussing how to design the anchoring mechanism of stablecoins, ensure transparent redemption, and operate compliantly within the dollar system, but has transformed into a multi-layered battle surrounding the boundaries of politics and business, wealth structure, and power struggles.
GENIUS Act: Technological progress delayed by political games
The GENIUS Act was originally scheduled for a vote on May 8, but it failed to pass, receiving only 48 votes in support and 49 against. One of the core Democratic lawmakers, Maxine Waters, clearly pointed out: 'The Republicans have not addressed Trump's conflict of interest with cryptocurrency assets, but rather have used this bill to give him regulatory power over stablecoin competitors.'
In short, the shelving of this bill is not due to unreasonable regulatory provisions, but because some lawmakers believe that continuing to advance legislation in the context of '**the president possibly owning stablecoin investments**' constitutes procedural and substantive risks.
The Republican side has no intention of conceding. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has already proposed a motion to restart voting within days, demonstrating a strong push to advance. The BIS (Bureau of Industry and Security) previously abandoned enforcing the 'AI Diffusion Rules,' indicating that the current federal administrative system tends towards deregulation to maintain the competitiveness of U.S. tech companies in AI and cryptocurrency.
This logic is also reflected in the field of stablecoins: against the backdrop of advancing the global digitalization of the dollar, Republicans are more willing to delegate power to the market, creating a stablecoin framework that is 'anchored by the Federal Reserve and issued by enterprises,' rather than standing still until political risks are clarified.
Stablecoins become a 'testbed for capital influence,' and market structure rules may be adjusted again.
This intertwining of politics and cryptocurrency is not a coincidence. The deep connection between the Trump family and World Liberty Financial (WLF) is noteworthy. The USD1 stablecoin launched by this platform involves a $2 billion settlement plan with Binance and is even linked to sovereign capital in Abu Dhabi. Moreover, members of Trump's own family— including Donald Jr., Eric, and the youngest, Barron—are all listed as 'Web3 ambassadors' for WLF, raising further public concerns about the objectivity of its policies.
A report released in April by the nonpartisan organization 'National Democratic Defenders Action' states that the Trump family's cryptocurrency assets have reached $2.9 billion, accounting for 40% of their total wealth. This scale of assets is no longer a 'private investment behavior' and is likely to influence their public governance choices.
Therefore, the Democratic Party is brewing a tougher 'de-interested' plan, including prohibiting the president, vice president, and their families from directly or indirectly holding meme coins, stablecoins, and other cryptocurrency assets related to their policies. If such institutional arrangements take shape, they will create a precedent for a 'wall of separation' between cryptocurrency policies and personal wealth on a global scale.
Will it pass in the future? What is needed is not consensus, but new transactions.
From a procedural standpoint, the bill can be re-voted in a short time. Thune's renewed motion signifies that he still holds the agenda control. However, to cross the 60-vote threshold and avoid the Democratic Party's delay tactics, more political bargaining is still needed.
Currently, if the Republicans do not amend the bill's provisions regarding 'conflicts of interest,' they may seek to gain centrist support by adding certain 'transparency disclosure' clauses or establishing an independent compliance review mechanism. This is not an adjustment of the regulatory content itself, but a repair surrounding political legitimacy.
On the Democratic side, there is actually real pressure. As the 2026 midterm elections approach, many lawmakers hope to achieve visible results in cryptocurrency policy, especially in the stablecoin sector. If the U.S. continues to delay, it risks falling further behind Europe's MiCA framework and the central bank digital currency pilots in several Asian countries. America's technological soft power is being undermined by regulatory stalling.
This predicament has been long marked by Mlion.ai's policy warning system, which believes that 'the implementation of a national regulatory framework for stablecoins will continue to face party struggles,' and the probability of passing in the short term remains uncertain, but local compliance mechanisms (such as state-level regulation and auditing standards) may break the deadlock first.
Looking at the 'Stablecoin Bill' reveals the differences in regulatory systems between China and the U.S.
The controversy surrounding the GENIUS Act reflects a fundamental characteristic of U.S. regulatory models—highly politicized. This characteristic is clearly presented in Mlion.ai's comparative analysis of cryptocurrency policies in China and the U.S.:
The U.S. regulatory push model is characterized as 'government-business intertwining, repeated bargaining,' and the resulting laws are often compromises of political negotiations.
China, on the other hand, adopts a more 'top-level design + industry sandbox' approach, where regulatory frameworks are rapidly established and gradually optimized during policy windows.
This means that while China's exploration of stablecoins and the digital yuan faces more path restrictions, it has an advantage in legal certainty. The strong market vitality in the U.S. is constrained by the instability of compliance paths brought about by the two-party system.
This is exactly why Mlion.ai, in its compliance rating and policy risk assessment of stablecoin projects, particularly marks the 'country compliance volatility factor'—reminding users that they need to not only look at the project itself but also assess the policy inertia and change frequency of the legal environment it inhabits.
In conclusion: Stablecoins are not the winners; they are merely part of a larger game.
The shelving of the GENIUS Act is not a regulatory failure but a signal that the political game of cryptocurrency in the U.S. has entered deep waters.
The bill still has a chance of passing in the future, but the path to its passage is no longer purely based on technical and economic rationality; it is a complex process filled with political exchanges, interest negotiations, and diplomatic projections.
For participants in the cryptocurrency industry, they should pay attention to the following points at this stage:
Legal uncertainty will become the new normal, and any project layout must have the ability to quickly adjust strategies.
The ability to respond to both technical and policy challenges will become essential for survival; pure technical advantages are insufficient to counter regulatory risks.
Intelligent policy assistants and AI compliance systems will become important weapons in the future competition for cryptocurrency compliance.
And this is precisely the core direction that the Mlion.ai platform focuses on—helping users find clear paths, avoid red lines, and seize opportunities in a chaotic policy environment.
Disclaimer: The above content is for information sharing only and does not constitute any investment advice. Please make rational decisions based on your own risk tolerance.