GENIUS Act Fails 60-Vote Cloture, Revealing Political Tensions

The GENIUS Act, a piece of legislation aimed at establishing a federal framework for stablecoins, faced a significant setback on May 8, 2025. Despite clearing the committee with bipartisan support and initial momentum, the bill failed to secure the 60 votes required for cloture, leaving it in legislative limbo. The 48–49 vote highlighted deeper tensions within the policymaking process surrounding digital assets, ethics, and executive influence.

Cloture, the procedural mechanism used to end debate and proceed to a final vote, requires a supermajority of 60 votes. The failure to invoke cloture not only delayed the vote but also exposed underlying issues in the regulation of digital assets. The vote revealed persistent policy disagreements and growing discomfort with the potential misuse of financial innovation for political or personal gain, especially in light of President Trump and his family’s crypto dealings.

While much of the public discourse focused on Democratic senators who opposed the motion, including co-sponsors of the bill, the Republican defections also played a crucial role in the bill’s failure. Despite prominent GOP sponsorship, three Republican senators voted against cloture: Josh Hawley, Rand Paul, and Senate Majority Leader John Thune. Thune’s last-minute reversal was particularly notable given his earlier support for digital asset regulation. Senators Roger Wicker and Jerry Moran were notably absent from the vote.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent framed the vote as a missed opportunity, warning that the bill represented a once-in-a-generation chance to expand dollar dominance and U.S. influence in financial innovation. He criticized dissenting senators, stating that those who voted to stonewall U.S. ingenuity face a choice: either step up and lead or watch digital asset innovation move offshore. Senator Cynthia Lummis echoed this disappointment, calling Thune’s reversal emblematic of the broader hesitation now shadowing crypto legislation.

The GENIUS Act’s failure on the Senate floor was also influenced by growing conflict of interest concerns at the highest levels of government. World Liberty Financial, a Trump-affiliated crypto firm, recently entered a $2 billion deal involving its USD1 stablecoin, a UAE-backed fund, and Binance. Additionally, President Trump and his allies have reportedly earned over $100 million from the $TRUMP meme coin, raising serious questions about the monetization of political access and the blurring of public and private interests.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune’s unexpected “no” vote on the GENIUS Act cloture motion was tactical. Days before the vote, Thune had signaled openness to Democratic amendments, recognizing that Republicans would need at least seven Democratic votes to advance the bill. However, by the time the vote came, he appeared to shift course, responding to mounting political pressure and signaling a willingness to slow the process in hopes of a more durable, bipartisan outcome. His “no” vote functionally preserves the option to reintroduce the bill later—potentially with amendments that address the concerns raised by both Democrats and ethics-minded Republicans.

This shift reflects a broader recalibration within the GOP, recognizing that legislation this consequential cannot be rushed, especially while ethical questions surrounding the President’s financial entanglements remain unresolved. Thune’s reversal can be seen not as a rebuke of the bill’s core aims but as a signal that the path forward must be more deliberate and inclusive if it is to succeed.

The ethical challenges posed by this moment extend beyond political theater, challenging the structural safeguards of American democracy. The Constitution’s Emoluments Clause bars federal officials from receiving benefits from foreign entities, yet these safeguards are being tested in the midst of much-needed regulatory clarity for digital assets. Senator Elizabeth Warren warned that the GENIUS Act could make the President’s grift even easier, while Senator Cynthia Lummis acknowledged ethical concerns, stating that Trump’s private dinner with meme coin holders “gives me pause.”

In response to mounting concerns over President Trump’s meme coin profits, Senator Chris Murphy and Representative Sam Liccardo introduced the Modern Emoluments and Malfeasance Enforcement (MEME) Act. This legislation aims to prohibit the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, senior Executive Branch officials, and their immediate family members from issuing, endorsing, or financially benefiting from securities, commodities, or digital assets—including meme coins—during their time in office. The bill also bars post-issuance promotion or behavior likely to result in personal gain, with violations subject to both civil and criminal penalties.

The GENIUS Act aims to create a federal framework for payment stablecoins, which are digital tokens pegged to the U.S. dollar, while allowing state oversight for smaller issuers if their rules closely align with federal standards. This approach seeks to balance national consistency with state flexibility. Senator Ruben Gallego made clear his concerns were procedural, not ideological, citing rushed amendments and a lack of transparency. Properly regulated stablecoins could lower remittance costs, speed up payments, and improve access for the unbanked. However, when ethics are in question, trust erodes and meaningful innovation is sidelined.

The failure to invoke cloture on the GENIUS Act was not the end of stablecoin legislation but the beginning of a more honest reckoning with what effective, ethical regulation must look like. It surfaced the unresolved tension between innovation and influence and reminded lawmakers that trust is just as essential as technology in shaping the future of finance. The promise of crypto is still very real, but realizing that promise will require a framework that empowers the industry, protects consumers and investors, and upholds the constitutional principles that safeguard democracy itself. If this vote served as a warning, then it also offers an opportunity—for Congress to return to the table with clearer priorities, stronger guardrails, and a shared commitment to public trust.