White House pushed back with $193 million to the negotiation table: The real game behind the stalemate of the stablecoin bill

On January 29, news reports indicate that cryptocurrency political funding is profoundly influencing the direction of U.S. policy. With less than a year until the midterm elections, the crypto industry has accumulated approximately $193 million in political funds. This force is pushing the White House to re-engage in digital asset legislative negotiations, with stablecoin regulation and crypto market structure becoming core focal points.

The Crypto Political Action Committee Fairshake stated that its funding has nearly reached the total amount from the previous election cycle. Major support has been provided by Ripple, a16z, and the United States’ largest compliant CEX. The organization will continue to support candidates who favor the crypto industry and pressure opponents. Although funds have not yet been fully deployed, political influence is already evident.

Legislatively, the CLARITY Act, due to its stablecoin yield provisions, has caused disagreements between crypto companies and traditional banks and was forced to be shelved earlier this month. Subsequently, the White House directly intervened, with the Trump administration’s crypto policy team convening senior executives from both sides to seek a compromise. Several industry associations have confirmed their attendance.

The banking sector strongly opposes the bill. Geoff Kendrick warned that if stablecoins grow to a $2 trillion scale, global bank deposits could lose up to $1.5 trillion within a few years. Currently, the market cap of USD stablecoins exceeds $300 billion, with funds continuously shifting from the banking system to on-chain assets. Brian Moynihan further pointed out that in the long term, up to $6 trillion in bank deposits could transfer into stablecoins.

More critically, these funds are not flowing back into the banking system. Reserves of Tether and Circle are mainly invested in government bonds and similar instruments, with a very low proportion remaining as deposits in banks, putting greater pressure on regional banks.

The core controversy lies in whether stablecoin issuers should be allowed to offer yields on tokens. Banks fear this will accelerate deposit outflows, while crypto companies argue that restricting reward mechanisms will hinder innovation and institutional adoption.

The White House’s intervention at this point aims both to break the legislative deadlock and to respond to election pressures. The $193 million is not only political funding but also a symbol of the crypto industry’s influence. The game over stablecoin regulation, U.S. crypto policy, and digital asset legislation is entering a new phase.