On July 15, 2025, the U.S. House of Representatives failed to pass a procedural motion needed to advance three key pieces of crypto legislation: the GENIUS Act, the Digital Asset Market Structure Clarification Act (CLARITY Act), and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act. The vote—196 in favor and 223 against—reflected deep divisions within the Republican party and resistance from Democratic lawmakers. These bills represent the most coordinated legislative push in years to regulate digital assets and stablecoins, while also attempting to address concerns about privacy in a digital currency future. However, internal disputes over bill consolidation and oversight structures prevented progress. Below, we explore each bill’s intent, scope, and future implications.
JUST IN: 🇺🇸 210 Democrats and 13 Republicans voted against advancing Crypto Genius Act, Clarity Act & Anti‑CBDC Act. pic.twitter.com/tt4M2HX27O
— Watcher.Guru (@WatcherGuru) July 15, 2025
The GENIUS Act: A Federal Framework for Stablecoin Regulation
The GENIUS Act (Guarding Every Nation’s Issuance Under Scrutiny) passed the Senate in June 2025 by a 68–30 bipartisan vote, showing rare alignment on stablecoin regulation. The bill establishes a federal framework for payment stablecoins, requiring full backing by cash or Treasury bills, subject to regular audits. It also grants state-level regulators the ability to oversee smaller stablecoin issuers, creating a dual-registration system akin to how banks can choose state or federal charters.
Supporters argue this structure will bring much-needed clarity to the $160 billion stablecoin market. U.S.-issued stablecoins like USDC and PYUSD have gained momentum, especially in digital payments, trade finance, and decentralized finance (DeFi). The GENIUS Act aims to standardize reserve requirements, prohibit risky backing assets, and increase transparency. Importantly, it imposes penalties for non-compliance and false reserve disclosures.
However, some lawmakers have voiced concern. Critics say the bill lacks clear enforcement procedures, particularly around its proposed “Digital Asset Oversight Committee.” Financial ethics groups also note the bill includes minimal safeguards against market manipulation or lobbying influence over committee membership. Still, the bill marks a significant step toward integrating stablecoins into traditional financial oversight structures. It attempts to balance innovation with safety by setting clear operational guidelines while allowing state flexibility for startups.
The CLARITY Act: Defining Jurisdiction Between the SEC and CFTC
The Digital Asset Market Structure Clarification Act, commonly referred to as the CLARITY Act, seeks to resolve a long-standing regulatory dilemma: who oversees digital assets—the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)? This bill proposes a new classification system for digital assets, distinguishing between those that operate as securities, like initial coin offerings, and those that function more like commodities, such as Bitcoin or utility tokens.
Under the bill, assets meeting certain decentralization criteria would fall under CFTC jurisdiction, while those with centralized control or profit-sharing models would remain under SEC oversight. The Act also includes a pathway for projects to evolve from being securities into non-securities over time—an approach some view as more reflective of blockchain’s iterative nature.
The goal is to curb regulatory overreach and provide innovators with a safe harbor period during initial development. Proponents argue this would prevent future disputes like the SEC’s lawsuits against Ripple and Coinbase, which stemmed from unclear classification rules. Yet, some critics believe the safe harbor provisions go too far and could be used to shield fraudulent offerings from scrutiny. Others worry the Act may limit consumer protections by reducing SEC authority over platforms with thin investor disclosures.
The bill remains a central focus for companies seeking legal certainty to build in the U.S., and for policymakers looking to reduce duplicative enforcement actions. If passed, it could help attract institutional capital by offering clear compliance frameworks, but only if amendments address its current oversight blind spots.
The Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act: Blocking a U.S. Digital Dollar
The third bill, the , seeks to ban the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC). Sponsored primarily by Republicans, this bill reflects growing skepticism around government-issued digital money, especially in the context of financial surveillance and privacy risks.
Supporters argue that a CBDC would give the government unprecedented visibility into individual transactions. They point to the possibility of programmable money that could restrict or monitor spending, raising civil liberties concerns. The bill would prohibit any CBDC that allows the Federal Reserve to track personal or business transactions, effectively ending research into retail digital dollar models.
This opposition coincides with global momentum around CBDCs. Over 130 countries are exploring or piloting CBDCs, including the European Central Bank and the People’s Bank of China. However, the U.S. remains cautious, especially after pushback from privacy advocates, banking associations, and some sectors of Congress. The Anti-CBDC Act capitalizes on that hesitation, tying digital currency development to broader political themes of personal freedom and financial autonomy.
Critics of the bill warn that blocking CBDC development could hurt the U.S. in cross-border payment innovation and weaken dollar influence in a digitizing world. Financial institutions have also noted that wholesale CBDC use—restricted to banks—might still be needed to modernize settlement systems, especially in light of tokenized treasuries and FedNow adoption.
While the bill’s future remains uncertain, it clearly reflects a desire to set guardrails around any future government-issued digital money. It sends a message that if CBDCs are to move forward, they must protect individual privacy and avoid centralized control features.
Congress has a real opportunity to ensure America leads on crypto.
— Congressman Tim Moore (@RepTimMooreNC) July 15, 2025
The House must pass the CLARITY Act, the GENIUS Act, and the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act to protect innovation, privacy, and the future of the U.S. dollar. pic.twitter.com/dZsRMh40fT
Procedural Breakdown: Why the Bills Failed to Advance
The failure to advance these bills was not based on their content alone but stemmed from procedural and political conflict. A motion to bring the bills to the House floor fell short, with 196 members voting in favor and 223 voting against. Notably, 12 Republicans joined Democrats in voting “no,” undermining the GOP majority. Internal disputes centered on whether to advance the bills as a single package or separately, with some members insisting that consolidation would derail Senate support.
House leadership, including Speaker Mike Johnson and Majority Leader Steve Scalise, had publicly supported the package as part of a larger “Crypto Week” initiative. Former President Donald Trump also voiced support, aligning the effort with Republican messaging on innovation and financial freedom. However, far-right lawmakers expressed concern over procedural shortcuts and the potential implications of bundling unrelated measures.
Democratic leaders, meanwhile, objected to the bills’ deregulatory leanings and lack of consumer protection. Representative Maxine Waters, a leading Democratic voice on financial regulation, warned that these bills could weaken oversight and increase fraud risks. This split highlights how crypto remains a partisan issue, despite some areas of bipartisan agreement, especially around stablecoins.
What Happens Next: Reintroduction and Political Calculus
Republican leadership has stated the bills will return for another vote, possibly before the August recess. However, reintroducing them will require resolving the strategic debate over bundling and gaining broader consensus within the GOP. The bills may also need amendments to address transparency, accountability, and consumer safeguards.
If the House successfully passes the package on a second attempt, the Senate will need to reconcile any differences with its version of the GENIUS Act and weigh in on the new provisions in the CLARITY and Anti-CBDC Acts. Until then, regulatory uncertainty continues to cloud U.S. crypto policy.
Institutional investors, Web3 developers, and fintech innovators will continue to watch Washington closely. Progress on these bills could help unlock broader participation in digital finance, while failure to act risks ceding leadership to other jurisdictions with clearer rules.
A Missed Moment, but Not the End
The failure to move forward on these three bills marks a setback for U.S. crypto regulation, but it is far from the final word. The GENIUS Act, CLARITY Act, and Anti-CBDC Act each aim to define the next era of digital finance—balancing innovation with stability, and freedom with accountability. However, the path forward requires bipartisan compromise, procedural clarity, and a renewed commitment to constructive policymaking.
*Disclaimer: News content provided by Genfinity is intended solely for informational purposes. While we strive to deliver accurate and up-to-date information, we do not offer financial or legal advice of any kind. Readers are encouraged to conduct their own research and consult with qualified professionals before making any financial or legal decisions. Genfinity disclaims any responsibility for actions taken based on the information presented in our articles. Our commitment is to share knowledge, foster discussion, and contribute to a better understanding of the topics covered in our articles. We advise our readers to exercise caution and diligence when seeking information or making decisions based on the content we provide.
