US Bankers association push for 60 day pause to stop stablecoin rules going live

US banking groups are pressing regulators to slow parts of the federal rollout of the GENIUS Act, opening a new front in their broader fight over how far stablecoins should be allowed to move into territory long dominated by bank deposits. On April 22, the American Bankers Association (ABA) and three other banking trade groups asked the Treasury Department and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. to delay the public comment deadlines for three proposed rules implementing the GENIUS Act . The associations requested that the agencies wait until 60 days after the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) finalizes its own regulatory framework. This procedural request could push the activation of the federal stablecoin law back by several months. Related Reading Treasury’s first GENIUS rule tightens Washington’s grip on who can scale stablecoins The proposal leaves states with a narrow lane while pushing large stablecoin issuers toward federal control. Apr 2, 2026 · Gino Matos Notably, the move arrives just as traditional banks are actively pressing Senate lawmakers to tighten limits on stablecoin rewards in the broader Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, or CLARITY, signaling a coordinated, dual-front effort to constrain the digital asset sector. At the core of both conflicts is a fundamental economic stake: Commercial lenders want stablecoins confined strictly to serving as payment rails. They view allowing stablecoins to function as yield-bearing cash alternatives as a structural threat that could siphon capital from traditional deposits, severely disrupting the deposit-funded lending models that underpin the US credit system. Why the Banks are seeking more time on GENIUS rules The GENIUS Act, signed into law last year, established a baseline for stablecoin issuance but requires finalized administrative rules to take effect. The OCC serves as the primary regulator for nonbank stablecoin issuers under the law and has proposed a foundational framework that remains pending. The banking associations are arguing that three overlapping federal proposals are “substantively tethered” to the OCC’s primary rule. These include a Treasury Department rule evaluating whether a state’s regulatory regime is equivalent to the federal standard; an FDIC rule outlining requirements for agency-regulated issuers and banks; and a joint directive from the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FINCEN) and the Office of Foreign Assets Control (OFAC) covering anti-money-laundering and sanctions compliance. In their communication to the agencies, the banking groups contended that a fragmented comment process with staggered deadlines across interdependent proposals would undermine the goal of regulatory consistency. They argued that public feedback would be more comprehensive if stakeholders could evaluate all the proposed rules against a finalized OCC framework. However, the practical effect of granting this extension would be a substantial delay. Under the statute, the GENIUS Act takes effect 120 days after final regulations are issued, or 18 months after enactment. By tethering the Treasury and FDIC timelines to the OCC’s delayed schedule, the banking sector is effectively attempting to slow the deployment of regulated, nonbank stablecoin infrastructure. The fight over stablecoin rewards is stalling another crypto bill While the commercial lending sector seeks to slow the regulatory rollout of the GENIUS Act, it is also engaged in a fierce lobbying effort to alter the CLARITY Act. The banking industry is aggressively contesting provisions that would permit third-party platforms to offer yields on stablecoins. Essentially, this escalates what might appear to be a technical dispute into a battle over the future of interest-bearing cash substitutes. The GENIUS Act expressly forbade stablecoin issuers from paying interest directly to holders. However, it left a pathway for secondary arrangements where trading platforms and other third-party platforms could pay rewards for holding stablecoins on their platforms. The banking industry is advocating for a total ban on such incentives. As a result, the ABA has launched an intensive public relations campaign, including premium advertising in Washington publications , to eliminate this perceived loophole. The messaging warns lawmakers that allowing stablecoins to generate yield poses a direct threat to the viability of local community lending markets. Those arguments recently encountered opposition from federal economists. A 21-page analysis published by the White House Council of Economic Advisers concluded that implementing a comprehensive ban on stablecoin rewards would increase traditional bank lending by just $2.1 billion, representing a negligible 0.02% of outstanding loans. The CEA report also estimated that a full yield ban would cost consumers approximately $800 million. This data has significantly weakened the banking industry's central argument that unrestricted stablecoin yield r