Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 68.
This bill (STABLE Act of 2025) creates a federal framework for payment stablecoins.
It limits who may issue dollar‑denominated payment stablecoins to approved "permitted" issuers, sets 1:1 reserve, custody, reporting, AML/BSA, and consumer‑protection requirements, prescribes supervisory authorities and enforcement tools, places a two‑year moratorium on new endogenously collateralized stablecoins, and carves payment stablecoins out of several federal securities statutes.
It also requires studies, interoperability work, and deadlines for agency rulemaking and application decisions.
Provides sought legal clarity that could attract supporters, but centralization, barriers to nonbank issuers, and complexity lower enactment odds absent broad compromise.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a comprehensive substantive regulatory statute that defines a new regulatory regime for payment stablecoins, establishes specific operational requirements and enforcement tools, and integrates closely with existing financial statutes. It also includes reporting and study mandates.
Bank concentration: left worries about incumbents; right sees cartel risk.
Bank concentration: left worries about incumbents; right sees cartel risk.
Likely broadly favorable to strong consumer protections, transparency, AML rules, and criminal penalties for false reserve attestations.
May be concerned that the regime privileges banks and large incumbent firms, and that state or decentralized innovators are constrained.
Support will depend on ensuring access and competition safeguards.
Views the bill as a pragmatic, technocratic framework providing legal clarity and financial‑stability guardrails.
Appreciates timelines and interagency coordination but worries about implementation details, potential regulatory capture, and administrative burdens on smaller firms.
Likely skeptical of the bill’s expansion of federal supervisory power and barriers to nonbank issuance.
Views many requirements as heavy regulatory overreach that could stifle market innovation and favor incumbent banks.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Provides sought legal clarity that could attract supporters, but centralization, barriers to nonbank issuers, and complexity lower enactment odds absent broad compromise.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Bank concentration: left worries about incumbents; right sees cartel risk.
Provides sought legal clarity that could attract supporters, but centralization, barriers to nonbank issuers, and complexity lower enactmen…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill is a comprehensive substantive regulatory statute that defines a new regulatory regime for payment stablecoins, establishes specific operational requirements and enfo…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.