US Senate set for vote on Stablecoin Bill as debate intensifies

It’s worth noting that the vote will require support from at least 60 senators to advance. If successful, the bill could move swiftly through the chamber in the coming days, with backing from both major political parties. 

Supporters of the legislation include several Democratic senators with favourable views on digital assets, as well as former President Donald Trump.

Debate over credit card competition and stablecoin oversight 

Beyond stablecoins, the legislation has become a focal point for debates over credit card processing rules. A separate but related proposal supported by both Republican and Democratic senators would require large banks to give merchants more options when routing credit card transactions, potentially reducing reliance on Visa and Mastercard. 

This proposal aims to increase competition in the payments sector by mandating access to multiple processing networks. While some lawmakers have pushed to attach these provisions to the stablecoin bill, Senate Banking Committee leadership has indicated it may address the credit card rules independently in future legislation. 

The stablecoin bill itself introduces a framework for the issuance and regulation of dollar-pegged digital tokens, requiring that they be backed by short-term, liquid reserves overseen by state or federal authorities. The intention is to clarify how stablecoins may be used for payments and to bring them within a formal regulatory perimeter. 

However, not all lawmakers agree on the bill’s merits. Progressive senators have criticised the proposal for lacking sufficient protections against financial crime and systemic risk. They have also raised concerns over President Trump’s potential to benefit personally from a stablecoin project linked to his business interests. 

Democratic senators opposing the bill argue that it leaves open significant regulatory loopholes, including the potential misuse of stablecoins by illicit actors. One senator shared staff analysis suggesting the legislation fails to prevent anonymous transactions by foreign entities and private actors who could exploit the system without oversight.