Critics slam bipartisan bill as enabling presidential profiteering and weakening consumer protections
Democrats face mounting criticism for backing the Genius Act, a bipartisan crypto bill linked to Donald Trump’s business interests, raising questions about political conflicts and consumer risk.
In a move drawing sharp rebuke from watchdogs and lawmakers alike, prominent Democratic leaders are being accused of enabling former President Donald Trump’s crypto ambitions through their backing of controversial legislation titled the “Genius Act.”
The bill—named in apparent reference to Trump’s infamous 2018 self-declaration as a “stable genius”—paves the way for the federal government to adopt cryptocurrency payments via stablecoins. This shift could ultimately grant unprecedented access to government payment systems for private crypto ventures, including those linked to Trump himself.
“Democrats are poised to bless Trump’s crypto grift with the Genius act. If they do, it will be clear … they would rather endorse the president’s abuses than fight them,” said Corey Frayer, director of investor protection at the Consumer Federation of America.
The legislation arrives amid growing concern over Trump’s entry into the stablecoin market. After reportedly profiting from a “memecoin,” the former president launched his own stablecoin venture, despite stablecoins’ notorious volatility and lack of federal consumer safeguards. These digital tokens, supposedly pegged to traditional currencies like the US dollar, have a track record of losing value, lacking federal insurance, and facilitating illicit finance.
Earlier this year, Musk’s so-called “department of government efficiency”—notably aligned with Dogecoin—gained access to the Treasury’s payment infrastructure. On that same day, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer and House Democratic Leader Hakeem Jeffries vowed to block Trump’s influence through the “Stop the Steal Act.” Yet in a striking contradiction, other Democrats joined Republicans in sponsoring crypto-friendly legislation.
Frayer points out that the Genius Act offers crypto firms, including Trump’s, access to the same critical infrastructure as traditional banks, but with far fewer regulatory obligations. “The bills give crypto businesses such as the president’s access to the same payment system that banks and credit card providers use while subjecting them to far weaker standards than their traditional counterparts,” he said.
The situation escalated further on March 25 when Trump issued an executive order mandating digital payments for all government transactions. While 95% of such payments are already made electronically, the move was interpreted by critics as a mechanism to direct government funds through private stablecoins.
Musk later confirmed the administration’s intentions, proposing that public disbursements be “put on the blockchain.” That includes $5.45 trillion in federal payments—from Social Security to tax refunds—potentially redirecting them through Trump-linked crypto systems. Trials are already underway, including a $3.3 billion stablecoin allocation within the Department of Housing and Urban Development and similar moves at USAID.
Even more troubling are Trump’s alleged conflicts of interest. Legal actions against his crypto allies Justin Sun and Binance have been reportedly frozen under his administration. Meanwhile, his financial firm, World Liberty Financial, recently secured a shadowy $2 billion deal with a UAE entity chaired by the president’s brother.
Despite these red flags, Democratic figures like Senator Kirsten Gillibrand continue championing the Genius Act. During recent Senate Banking Committee discussions, news broke that Trump’s company was in talks with Binance about launching a stablecoin. Five Democrats still voted in favor of the bill.
Some House Democrats have pushed for amendments to bar public officials from holding financial interests in crypto assets. But such efforts have gained little momentum. Over the weekend, nine former Democratic supporters of the bill issued a public threat to halt its progress unless pressing concerns around national security and money laundering were addressed. Still, they expressed willingness to “continue working with our colleagues to address these issues.”
Frayer concluded with a stark warning: “The Democratic party has rightly pointed out that a sitting president’s conflicts of interest undermine the firmament of our democracy. Anyone, especially the president, who would use an office of public trust for personal benefit must be held accountable.”
Yet, with the Genius Act moving forward, critics argue that the Democrats may be turning a blind eye to the very abuses they claim to oppose.
