WASHINGTON (News Service) — While former President Donald Trump develops a digital currency-focused venture, including hosting exclusive gatherings with key investors at his golf resort, Democratic leaders have voiced strong disapproval, labeling it as potential abuse of power emanating from the executive branch.
However, the Democratic Party’s stance on the burgeoning cryptocurrency sector is not straightforward.
Efforts in the Republican-controlled Senate to bring legitimacy to cryptocurrency by implementing regulatory frameworks have garnered support from some Democrats, indicating a growing acceptance of the industry within the party. Nevertheless, disagreements have surfaced regarding proposed legislation, with many insisting it must prevent the former Republican president and his family from directly benefiting financially from cryptocurrency.
“I fully support regulating crypto assets,” stated Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat representing Connecticut. “Yet, when cryptocurrency appears to be so clearly exploited by Donald Trump to facilitate potential misconduct, I believe this should be considered when crafting legislation.”
The proposed law is progressing through the legislative process at an unusually rapid pace, particularly considering the relative novelty of the industry. Substantial financial resources and campaign contributions from cryptocurrency entities have established them as significant players in the political arena, increasingly attracting allies and the attention of lawmakers.
Here’s a breakdown of the industry’s rising influence and the ongoing political debate surrounding the proposed Digital Innovation and Global Economic Nexus for the United States (GENIUS) Act:
‘Being Anti-Crypto Can Shorten Your Political Career’
The 2024 elections clearly demonstrate the increasing influence of the cryptocurrency industry. Fairshake, a cryptocurrency-focused Super PAC, along with its affiliated PACs, invested over $130 million in various congressional campaigns.
Around $40 million of Fairshake’s funds were allocated to supporting Republican Bernie Moreno in Ohio in an attempt to unseat Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown. Brown, then Chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, was considered a prominent critic of the crypto sector and ultimately lost to Moreno by a margin exceeding 3 percentage points.
Following the 2024 election, Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase, a leading crypto exchange, posted on social media that “DC has received a clear message that opposing crypto can negatively impact one’s career, as it doesn’t reflect the voters’ preferences.”
According to Kara Calvert, Coinbase’s Vice President of U.S. Policy, Coinbase—the largest contributor to Fairshake—does not view its support as partisan. Significant funds were also used to support Democrats Ruben Gallego and Elissa Slotkin in their Senate races in key states.
Fairshake invested $10 million in Slotkin’s successful Senate campaign against Republican Mike Rogers. Slotkin, who won the Michigan race by a narrow margin of approximately 20,000 votes, expressed support for crypto during her campaign. Slotkin declined requests for an interview regarding the matter.
Similar dynamics are expected to play out in the lead-up to the 2026 elections, with several House and Senate races already being targeted. Fairshake reported that it held $116 million in available funds in January, earmarked for the 2026 midterm elections.
Josh Vlasto, spokesperson for Fairshake, told the News Service that they are “not slowing down, and that all options remain on the table.”
Shortly before a May 19th Senate vote to progress crypto legislation, an advocacy group affiliated with Coinbase emailed U.S. Senators offices, warning them that their vote on the matter would be factored into their crypto-friendliness score.
Calvert stated that the spending from entities like Fairshake “puts crypto on the map,” making members of congress aware “that crypto is a real and growing industry with significant investment in Washington.”
Democrats Grapple with a ‘Crypto President’
A substantial number of Democrats, sixteen in all, sided with Republicans to advance the cryptocurrency legislation. The GENIUS Act proposes establishing a novel regulatory framework for stablecoins, a category of cryptocurrency usually tied to the U.S. dollar. This is seen as a step towards enhanced consumer protection and greater legitimacy for the industry.
The central point of contention for many Democrats is that the bill, while it restricts members of Congress and their families from profiting from stablecoins, exempts the former president from these restrictions.
Trump, who previously expressed skepticism toward the industry, has publicly committed to establishing the U.S. as the world’s cryptocurrency hub should he secure a second term. Simultaneously, he and his family are actively involved in diverse aspects of the industry, including mining operations, substantial bitcoin investments, the launch of a new stablecoin, and a Trump-branded memecoin.
Shortly after Trump’s crypto interests became public knowledge in early May, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York reportedly encouraged the Democratic caucus to unite and vote against the proposed legislation to improve their bargaining position, according to a source who spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitivity of internal discussions.
On May 8th, several Senate Democrats who had previously supported the GENIUS Act changed their position and ultimately voted to prevent the bill from advancing. This was followed by negotiations between Senate Democrats and Republicans. The White House was also involved, maintaining communication with senator’s offices across party lines, according to a senior official who asked not to be named in order to share details of private discussions.
It is expected that a revised version of the bill will be put to a vote in the Senate this month. Modifications are still possible. Senator Jeff Merkley, a Democrat representing Oregon, has introduced an amendment—co-sponsored by Schumer—aiming to prevent the president and his family from profiting from stablecoins, though its prospects of success are uncertain.
“As is often the case with legislation, there’s always room for improvement. However, with this bill in particular, we have concerns surrounding the former president,” commented Democratic Senator Mark Kelly of Arizona. “That said, this version was negotiated by both Democrats and Republicans, and we have reached an agreement. I anticipate that this is the version that will ultimately pass.”
Despite these efforts, unease persists regarding the legislation. When asked if he was urging senators to oppose the bill, Schumer acknowledged that he has opposed it and noted “there is division within our caucus on that particular issue.”
Senator Murphy emphasized that “there is an obvious and significant loophole in this bill. Once it is enacted, it will be illegal for me to issue a cryptocurrency, but it will be perfectly legal for the President of the United States to do so.”
“If this bill passes, we will be going from a difficult situation to a much more manageable one,” he added.
What’s Next
Should the Senate pass the stablecoin legislation, the bill will still need to be approved by the House before it can be signed into law by the president.
Crypto advocates have stated that their next priority is to push Congress to introduce market structure legislation, a more extensive effort than simply regulating stablecoins.
Calvert stated, “Stablecoins are merely one piece of the puzzle. Next comes the market structure. We hope that the Senate collaborates to pass legislation swiftly.”
Certain Democrats view this legislation as an opportunity to establish fundamental safeguards for a quickly expanding industry that is particularly appealing to men and younger voters, demographics that shifted away from the party during the 2024 elections.
___
News Service contributors Alan Suderman, Lisa Mascaro, Matt Brown and Mary Clare Jalonick assisted in the writing of this report.