Connecticut lawmakers have unanimously passed a bill prohibiting state and local government divisions from accepting cryptocurrency payments and holding crypto assets.
The House Bill 7082, titled “An Act Concerning Various Revisions to the Money Transmission Statutes, State Payments and Investments in Virtual Currency [...],” received bipartisan support and was signed into law on June 10.
The bill document stipulates that “neither the state nor any political subdivision of the state” shall accept payments in cryptocurrency or purchase crypto assets.
The new legislation also prohibits the state of Connecticut from establishing a crypto asset reserve, making it one of the few US states that have explicitly rejected the idea of crypto asset reserves.
Democrats pushing the bill
First presented by Connecticut’s joint committee on banking in February 2025, the bill was cosponsored by Democrats, including State Representative Ken Gucker, Senator Patricia Miller and Senator Matthew Lesser.
Since the first vote in May, the bill has received widespread support from the House, with 105 votes supporting the bill and only 42 lawmakers voting against it in a vote on May 14.
The latest passing came from 148 votes in favor of the bill and zero opponents, with three abstaining.
Some online commentators cited the Democratic Party’s significant majority in Connecticut as a key driver of the unanimous vote, especially amid the party’s broader criticism of President Donald Trump’s involvement with memecoins and digital assets.
One related proposal, the Modern Emoluments and Malfeasance Enforcement Act, or the MEME Act, aims to prevent federal officials from using their position to profit from memecoins.
The ban “does nothing of substance”
According to some online industry observers, Connecticut’s ban on crypto investment by the state is likely driven by concerns over volatility and regulation, but it could become a big barrier to innovation.
On the other hand, Brogan Law founder Aaron Brogan told Cointelegraph that the ban “does nothing of substance,” and rather reflects that “some subset of Democrats are becoming polarized against the cryptocurrency industry,” likely because of its association with Trump.
“This is signaling that Connecticut is symbolically opposed to cryptocurrency, and to all the states that have established Bitcoin reserves,” said Brogan, adding:
“State legislatures love to ban things that weren’t happening anyway because it gets headlines without the pesky problem of actually having consequences in the real world.”
Brogan also highlighted that the Connecticut governor still has to sign the law and pointed to additional disclosure requirements targeting money transmitters in the private sector.
“That could potentially be costly, and bifurcate professional practices in the way the California privacy laws have for some online applications,” he said.
Growing list of states rejecting Bitcoin reserves
Under the Trump administration, the number of US states considering Bitcoin (BTC) reserve proposals has increased, with the number of strategic Bitcoin reserve (SBR) bills reaching 31, according to data from Bitcoin Laws.
Connecticut, however, is not alone in rejecting such initiatives, with lawmakers in five states — Montana, Wyoming, North Dakota, South Dakota and Pennsylvania — killing SBR bills in February alone.
In March, Utah’s Senate passed a Bitcoin bill but amended it to remove a section that would have authorized the state treasurer to invest in Bitcoin. The state of Oklahoma followed in April as the Senate Revenue and Taxation Committee also rejected a SBR proposal in a 6–5 vote.
The list of states rejecting Bitcoin reserve-related bills continued to grow in May, with Florida indefinitely postponing its SBR bill in early May and Arizona’s governor vetoing two crypto bills.
Magazine: US risks being ‘front run’ on Bitcoin reserve by other nations: Samson Mow
