US Agencies Miss GENIUS Act Deadline for Final Stablecoin Rules

U.S. stablecoin regulators missed a key rulemaking deadline tied to the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act, despite issuing multiple proposals and gathering public input over the past year. The deadline passed on Saturday, marking one year since the law was signed—yet no final regulations had been published by the end of that window.

The GENIUS Act, signed by President Donald Trump on July 18, 2025, created the first comprehensive federal regulatory framework for stablecoins. While several agencies advanced the process through notices of proposed rulemaking (NPRMs), rulemaking trackers maintained by Chapman and crypto investment firm Paradigm show that final rules were not issued before the statutory deadline.

Key takeaways

• Despite a full year of rule development, U.S. agencies had not released final GENIUS Act regulations by the deadline, according to Chapman and Paradigm trackers.
• GENIUS remains valid law, but the lack of final rules increases compliance uncertainty for stablecoin issuers and supervised institutions.
• Federal agencies—including the Treasury Department and banking regulators—published multiple NPRMs covering registration, supervision, reserve expectations, and AML-related implementation.
• Anchorage Digital used the one-year GENIUS milestone to renew a push for broader digital-asset market structure legislation through the CLARITY Act.

What the deadline miss means for stablecoin compliance

Missing the statutory deadline does not automatically invalidate the GENIUS Act itself. However, it can materially affect how quickly regulated entities can operationalize the framework. Stablecoin issuers, payment-focused platforms, and institutions planning to participate in issuance or custody have generally relied on final rules to guide compliance programs, governance processes, and supervisory expectations.

According to rulemaking trackers by law firm Chapman and Paradigm, multiple agencies published proposals during the past year but did not conclude the rulemaking process in time. The agencies named in the trackers include the Department of the Treasury, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC), and the Federal Reserve Board, all of which issued NPRMs without publishing final versions before the deadline.

That gap is likely to be most consequential for issuers seeking clarity on how regulators intend to evaluate reserve management, supervisory standards, and compliance obligations—areas where the GENIUS framework is intended to bring consistency across federal oversight.

GENIUS’s first year: agencies issued 10 proposed rulemakings

Paradigm’s tracking data indicates that federal regulators issued 10 NPRMs during the GENIUS Act’s first year. The proposals spanned the act’s broader implementation and the mechanics of how different types of regulated entities would participate.

The U.S. Department of the Treasury released four proposals focused on implementation and eligibility questions, including how regulators should determine when state stablecoin regimes are “similar” to the federal framework, registration requirements for foreign stablecoin issuers, and guidance tied to anti-money laundering (AML) compliance.

Meanwhile, the OCC issued two NPRMs addressing nationally chartered payment stablecoin issuers, including approval requirements and supervisory standards intended for those entities.

The FDIC published one NPRM for FDIC-supervised institutions that issue payment stablecoins, centering on supervisory expectations and operational requirements such as reserve management.

The National Credit Union Administration (NCUA) also moved forward with proposed rules designed to enable federally insured credit unions to participate in stablecoin issuance.

Finally, federal banking agencies jointly proposed an interagency implementation rule meant to harmonize supervision across the OCC, Federal Reserve, and FDIC—an attempt to reduce inconsistencies in oversight that can arise when multiple regulators examine similar activities under different supervisory practices.

In practical terms, the breadth of proposals shows regulators were actively working through the architecture of GENIUS. Still, the failure to finalize the rules by the deadline leaves open questions about how the draft proposals will be resolved and what changes—if any—will be made after public comment periods close.

Anchorage renews its CLARITY push as GENIUS rules remain unfinished

As regulators continued to work through proposed GENIUS rules, Anchorage Digital—a federally chartered crypto bank—used the GENIUS one-year anniversary to call again for Congress to pass the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (CLARITY). In a report published on Friday, Anchorage said it was “renewing” its request for lawmakers to extend stablecoin market-structure rules into the broader digital asset economy.

CLARITY is intended to establish the first federal regulatory framework for digital assets more broadly. Anchorage’s messaging also aligns with ongoing industry debate about how far existing banking rules should extend to stablecoins, particularly regarding whether yield offerings could be structured without triggering deposit-substitute concerns.

Earlier coverage noted that CLARITY advanced through the Senate Banking Committee in May. Industry groups, including state banking associations, have argued that the bill could enable crypto firms to offer yields on stablecoins without meeting requirements they say traditional banks must follow.

On July 13, the American Bankers Association (ABA) and the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), among other state banking associations, sent a joint letter urging Senate leaders to provide more detail on CLARITY’s stablecoin yield provisions. The letter also argued that amendments are needed to ensure payment stablecoins remain transaction tools rather than operating like deposit substitutes.

Legislative uncertainty has also been visible in market participants’ expectations. On June 26, Galaxy Digital reportedly cut its odds of CLARITY becoming law in 2026 to 50%, citing the lack of a unified Senate Banking–Agriculture text, no firm floor schedule, and a narrowing legislative window as lawmakers near departure periods.

Taken together, the regulatory timeline under GENIUS and the parallel legislative push for CLARITY point to a broader policy reality for the sector: stablecoins are increasingly regulated through federal rulemaking, but questions about market structure and adjacent digital asset rules remain bound to Congress rather than agencies alone.

What to watch next as proposed rules move toward finality

With the GENIUS rulemaking deadline passed and final regulations still pending, stablecoin issuers and supervised institutions should watch for the agencies named in the rulemaking trackers to publish final rules—or revised drafts—after comment periods. Investors and operators may also want to monitor whether the interagency harmonization proposal results in more consistent supervisory expectations across regulators, and whether congressional momentum on CLARITY meaningfully changes the policy direction around stablecoin yields and broader digital asset market structure.