U.S. Bank Crypto Rules Remain Split Between Congress and Regulators

Congressional choices over bank crypto rules could determine whether U.S. institutions face lasting statutory permissions or restrictions, continued regulatory discretion, or a mix of both as agency guidance shifts.

A Sept. 30 Congressional Research Service report outlines those three approaches without endorsing one. Legislation could make rules more durable, while regulators can assess risks tied to specific activities.

The question extends to custody, stablecoin services and ledger-based transactions by banks and their subsidiaries. Banks generally may conduct activities related or incidental to the business of banking. Regulators assess whether an activity meets that standard and can be carried out safely; they differ on how crypto activities fit those tests.

Agency actions in 2025 show how guidance has changed. In March, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency reaffirmed that national banks and federal savings associations could conduct certain crypto custody, stablecoin and distributed-ledger activities. The agency also ended a prior supervisory non-objection process for those activities.

In May 2025, the OCC said the institutions could execute customer-directed trades in assets they custody and use third parties for permitted crypto services if they manage the risks.

Congress has addressed parts of the issue. The GENIUS Act made stablecoin issuance, custody and related activities permissible for bank subsidiaries. Under the House-passed CLARITY Act, banks could use a digital asset or blockchain when carrying out an activity already allowed by law. The Senate-reported text would separately authorize 11 types of crypto activity for banking organizations and credit unions.

The proposals cover different institutions and activities. Lawmakers still face a choice among leaving authority with regulators, setting statutory rules or dividing the role between Congress and agencies.