A dozen hardline Republicans on Tuesday derailed a raft of crypto legislation headed for a vote on the House floor, briefly throwing the three digital asset bills into limbo as GOP leadership scrambled to bring its caucus back together. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The House failed to pass a procedural vote to allow the chamber to move forward with consideration of the three crypto bills, as well as legislation to fund the Pentagon for the next fiscal year. <\/p>\n\n\n\n
The crypto measures represent a key priority for President Trump\u2002<\/u><\/a>and GOP leaders, who have vowed to get the long-sought digital asset legislation across the finish line. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The GENIUS Act, which seeks to create a regulatory framework for stablecoins, is poised to become law if it can clear the House and make it to Trump\u2019s desk. The bill passed the Senate last month with support from more than a dozen Democrats. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The second piece of legislation, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, aims to provide regulatory rules for the broader crypto market, splitting up oversight between two financial regulators. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It faces a more uncertain future, as the Senate prepares to introduce its own version of the market structure bill. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The third measure is the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, which would block the Federal Reserve from issuing a central bank digital currency (CBDC). However, its companion bill has received little traction in the upper chamber. <\/p>\n\n\n\n While House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) initially supported the procedural vote, he changed his vote to \u201cno\u201d as a procedural move to allow the chamber to vote on the measure again at a later date. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Trump announced late Tuesday<\/u><\/a> that he had reached a deal with most of the lawmakers who torpedoed the initial vote, saying he met with 11 of the 12 members and they had agreed to vote in favor of the measure the next morning.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Here are the twelve GOP lawmakers who opposed the procedural vote: <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rep. Anna Paulina Luna (Fla.)<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Luna was one of several House Republicans who said they were concerned about the potential for a \u201cbackdoor\u201d in the legislation that could allow for the creation of a CBDC. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThere was a piece of legislation that would\u2019ve been voted on today that would have allowed a backdoor to create a central back digital currency,\u201d Luna wrote on X. \u201cI support crypto but I do not support CBDC\u2019s.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cI was part of a group that was able to block it,\u201d she continued. \u201cAgain, I am pro-crypto but cannot allow for any backdoor or loose language that would allow for a CBDC.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n While the anti-CBDC measure would bar the creation of a CBDC, it appears that the lawmakers were largely focused on the GENIUS Act, which is most likely to become law out of the three bills. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rep. <\/strong>Scott Perry\u2002<\/u><\/a>(Pa.)<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Perry similarly told The Hill on Tuesday that he was \u201cagainst anything that will potentially allow the creation of a central bank digital currency.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rep. <\/strong>Chip Roy\u2002<\/u><\/a>(Texas)<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Roy cited concerns about a CBDC, as well as other aspects of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, also known simply as the CLARITY Act. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe get back into town, and they had this stuff in the rule that we had some concerns with, like \u2026 the Senate version of the Genius Act that we think leaves some room for some concern with respect to the central bank digital currency, and that there not be a hard ban on that,\u201d he told The Hill. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cWe had some other things in our version of the bill, with respect to CLARITY, which deals with market structure, things that we think are critically important,\u201d Roy added. \u201cWe feel like we need to be dealing with all of this at once.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rep. <\/strong>Victoria Spartz\u2002<\/u><\/a>(Ind.) <\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Spartz said she opposed the measure because Speaker Mike Johnson\u2002<\/u><\/a>(R-La.) blocked efforts by her colleagues to put forward an amendment addressing their CBDC concerns. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cJust as I objected to having Queen Nancy & King Kevin I feel the same about King Mike,\u201d Spartz wrote on X. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rep. <\/strong>Michael Cloud\u2002<\/u><\/a>(Texas)<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Cloud pointed to Rep. Warren Davidson\u2019s\u2002<\/u><\/a>(R-Ohio) lengthy post on X laying out his concerns with the crypto bills, writing, \u201cLet\u2019s fix these issues \u2013 then pass it.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Davidson, who ultimately supported the procedural measure Tuesday, suggested that a standalone anti-CBDC bill doesn\u2019t have a path to the 60 votes required in the Senate. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cNext week\u2019s process is designed to ultimately fail \u2013 on all but passing GENIUS without amendment (the Senate\u2019s stablecoin bill),\u201d he wrote. \u201cWithout the CBDC ban, CBDC delivery architecture would be in place, and nothing would protect self-custody. For this reason, I will oppose the GENIUS Act.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rep. <\/strong>Eli Crane\u2002<\/u><\/a>(Ariz.)<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Crane reposted Luna\u2019s message on X, adding, \u201cCompletely agree. I also voted no.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene (Ga.)<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Greene similarly argued that the GENIUS Act \u201clays the groundwork for a layered\u201d CBDC, underscoring that the bill does not expressly ban such digital tokens. <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cThe GENIUS Act does not follow President Trump\u2019s executive order because it does not ban a CBDC,\u201d she added, referring to a January order from the president on digital assets. \u201cHouse Leadership did not allow any amendments banning a CBDC. This should NOT be tolerated.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Rep. Tim Burchett (Tenn.)<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n Burchett explained his reasoning for voting down the procedural measure in a video posted to X, suggesting lawmakers \u201cneed to negotiate just a little bit.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cPeople will say, \u2018Oh, Burchett, you killed the crypto bill,\u2019\u201d he said. \u201cBut in reality, I kept the crypto bill alive because if it had gone to the floor in the form it\u2019s in, it would have died. And we need to negotiate just a little bit. Go a little slower, we get there a little faster.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n