Hawley Slams the Table, Opposes His Own Republican Party! The GENIUS Act Faces a 'Backstab'
Missouri firebrand Josh Hawley is stirring things up again. The Republican senator cast a vote against the GENIUS Act, which is being pushed by his party and endorsed by the White House, even willing to stand on the same side as the Democrats. His reasoning is simple and blunt: 'This is a damn license to print money for Silicon Valley giants!'
Behind the bill, who is sneaking a smile?
Hawley pointed his guns directly at the core loophole of the bill: allowing tech giants like Meta and Google to 【issue stablecoins without regulation】, equivalent to granting them 【private central bank】 privileges.
Even more bizarrely, if the bill passes, traditional payment giants like Visa and MasterCard could be overturned, while the Trump family's newly launched USD1 stablecoin and Musk's X payment ecosystem could reap the benefits effortlessly.
Interestingly, just on the eve of the bill's vote, the second-largest stablecoin, $CRCL, violently listed on the NYSE with an opening price of $69, skyrocketing 168% from the issuance price of $31! The market cast its vote with real money: the compliant stablecoin track is a capital frenzy. The infighting within the two parties leads to the bill's abrupt death.
Despite the Republicans holding 53 seats in the Senate, the GENIUS Act ultimately failed with a vote of 48:49.
Aside from Hawley and Paul, who defected from the Republican side, the collective betrayal by the Democrats was key. They demanded the inclusion of a clause 【prohibiting the President's family from issuing stablecoins】, directly targeting Trump's son's USD1 project.
Republican Senator Scott angrily criticized: 'This is the 'Trump Derangement Syndrome'! Purely obstructing for the sake of obstructing!'
Life and death are uncertain, but the war continues.
Majority Leader Thune has submitted a motion for reconsideration, and the bill still has a chance of resurrection. However, Hawley insists on【limiting the big companies' right to issue coins, otherwise forget it】. This chaotic battle exposes the rift in Washington: on one hand, trying to consolidate the dollar's hegemony with stablecoins, on the other hand, fearing uncontrollable tech capital; on one hand, calling for innovation, on the other hand, engaging in party strife.
The contrast between Circle's listing celebration and the bill's sudden death precisely proves: policies are always serving capital. While Washington is still tearing over 'who should print money',
the market has already voted with its feet—stablecoins are not about 'whether to regulate', but 'who can seize the right to regulate'.
Follow me, and I'll help you get ahead of others, creating an information gap.
