The president went public. Bluntly. President Donald J. Trump, as shared by RapidResponse47 on X, stated that the GENIUS Act is being “threatened and undermined by the Banks” and called it unacceptable. His message was direct. Banks are posting record profits while blocking legislation meant to benefit ordinary Americans.
The GENIUS Act passed as a first step toward making the United States the global hub for digital assets. The Clarity Act is next. Trump said both need to move forward, or the crypto industry shifts elsewhere. China was mentioned by name.
Must read: Indiana Pension Bitcoin Investment Just Rewrote History
Big Banks Are Playing Defense. And Losing Credibility Fast.
Eric Trump did not hold back either. In a post on X, Eric Trump called out the major financial institutions directly. He described them as institutions that “have held a monopoly and screwed their customers for years.” His post pointed to near-zero yields on retail money market accounts alongside excessive fees charged on low balances.
Those same banks, Eric Trump noted on X, now scramble to block crypto from offering genuine financial rewards. He called them the “greatest hypocrites” and said they are in “mass panic.” The post referenced @worldlibertyfi directly.
The tension here runs deeper than the headlines suggest. Stablecoin issuers today operate under licensing requirements, full reserves, and AML compliance. This is not an unregulated grey zone. Yet major bank executives continue framing the debate as if crypto runs with zero oversight.
You might also like: DOJ Seizes $61M Tether Tied to Pig Butchering
Jamie Dimon’s “Level Playing Field” Has a Catch
Dr. J Strategy, posting on X, put it plainly. Jamie Dimon’s call for a “level playing field” on stablecoins is not what it sounds like. What Dimon actually wants, the account argued on X, is to ensure no competing product can offer better returns than a traditional bank deposit.
The 1970s comparison matters here. Money market funds began offering real yields when bank deposits could not, under regulatory caps. Banks lobbied hard. Called it unsafe. Lost. Policymakers sided with competition. Savers benefited. Banks adapted.
Dr. J Strategy noted on X that Dimon still speaks about stablecoins as if they hold “no reserves, no compliance, no oversight.” That description does not match current reality. It matches a political argument, not a factual one.
Yield-bearing stablecoins threaten the actual business model. Banks collect deposits at near-zero rates, earn a clean spread off Fed balances, and pass almost nothing back to the account holder. A regulated stablecoin that passes through money market yields breaks that arrangement open. A few clicks, and the deposit moves.
You might also like: Ethereum Foundation DeFi Bet Defies the Bear Market
The Clarity Act Is Where the Real Fight Lives
Trump’s statement made the stakes explicit. The GENIUS Act was step one. The Clarity Act is step two. Without it, the market structure question stays unresolved and the industry has less reason to stay U.S.-based.
The president’s position is not an attack on banking itself. It targets the specific behavior of using lobbying and regulatory capture to slow legislation that would let Americans earn a better return on their own money.
As RapidResponse47 posted on X, Trump’s full statement said banks “should not be trying to undercut The Genius Act, or hold The Clarity Act hostage.” The instruction was clear: make a deal with the crypto industry, or stop pretending to act in the public’s interest.
Must read: Iran’s Crypto Market Freezes as War Strikes Hit
Dr. J Strategy also drew a pointed contrast on X between how crypto firms and banks compete. Crypto-native companies build new financial instruments, disclose terms, and pay competitive rates to attract capital. Banks build lobbying campaigns. The payment rails and transaction data that stablecoins threaten to open up represent the deeper prize both sides are fighting over.
The debate has a label now. Not a safety debate. A competition debate. Whether a protected deposit system gets to veto technologies that finally price deposits closer to what the risk-free rate should pay. In the 1970s, that argument failed. It appears to be failing again.
This article was created by News Coverage Agency, the best PR agency helping all firms gain access to media. Visit newscoverage.agency to learn more.