Stablecoin yields clash with banks over policy, Trump says

Growing tensions between traditional banks and digital assets are coming to a head as stablecoin yields move to the center of a heated policy fight.

Eric Trump accuses major banks of blocking stablecoin returns

On Wednesday, Eric Trump used X to accuse JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo of lobbying against higher stablecoin yields for U.S. savers. He argued the banks are defending a lucrative status quo at the expense of ordinary depositors.

Trump highlighted the wide spread between what banks pay customers and what they earn from the Federal Reserve. According to his post, banks currently offer just 0.01% to 0.05% annual percentage yield on many deposits, while collecting around 3.65% from the Fed on reserves.

That said, Trump said crypto platforms are now threatening this earnings model by seeking to offer 4% to 5% or higher returns on dollar-pegged tokens. He claimed banks are lobbying Congress to limit these returns through targeted legislation that would curb competition from digital assets.

Moreover, Trump accused the sector of pushing an aggressive campaign through the American Banking Association and allied groups. He said they are spending millions of dollars to tighten rules via the Clarity Act, which would significantly restrict the ability of crypto companies to pay interest on stablecoins. He branded the effort “anti-retail, anti-consumer, and straight-up anti-American.”

World Liberty Financial and questions around conflicts of interest

Trump is not a neutral observer in this debate. He is a co-founder of World Liberty Financial, the issuer of the USD1 stablecoin, and the firm is pursuing a banking charter from the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency. That application could place the company directly alongside traditional institutions it now criticizes.

However, the Trump family’s role in the business has sparked scrutiny. Critics warn of potential conflicts of interest because Donald Trump, as President, is closely involved in shaping U.S. crypto and stablecoin policy. They argue that regulatory decisions could directly benefit a company linked to the first family.

Despite this, Eric Trump has framed the dispute as a broader battle between legacy banks and digital finance. He maintains that depositors should be free to choose platforms offering more competitive returns on tokenized dollars, without being blocked by what he describes as entrenched lobbying power in Washington.

Banks warn of deposit flight and systemic risk

Traditional institutions have responded forcefully. They argue that allowing crypto platforms to pay interest on tokenized dollars could trigger large-scale deposit outflows from conventional savings accounts, especially if advertised rates approach 4% to 5%. In their view, that shift could undermine funding for the banking system and increase financial instability.

Jamie Dimon, CEO of JPMorgan, addressed the issue earlier this week. He said any company issuing dollar-pegged tokens and paying interest on customer balances should be treated as a full-fledged bank under federal law, with the same capital, liquidity, and supervisory requirements.

“If you are going to be holding balances and paying interest, that is a bank. You should be regulated like a bank,” Dimon said, reiterating his long-standing skepticism toward unregulated crypto credit products. His comments have become a key talking point for financial-sector lobbyists pressing Congress over how to treat interest-bearing digital dollars.

White House crypto advisor challenges bank-style framing

The push from Wall Street met resistance inside the administration. Patrick Witt, executive director of the President’s Council of Advisors for Digital Assets at the White House, publicly pushed back on Dimon’s framing of the issue. He argued that simply paying returns on token balances does not, by itself, justify full bank-level regulation.

Instead, Witt said the core regulatory question is whether a platform lends out or rehypothecates customer assets. If a firm is taking deposits and using those funds for lending or leveraged strategies, he said, that is what calls for traditional prudential oversight. By contrast, he suggested that paying a return from other sources, without rehypothecating deposits, should not automatically convert a platform into a bank.

In this context, Witt framed the current fight over stablecoin yields as part of a larger crypto yield regulation debate. He emphasized that rules must distinguish between custodial token platforms that hold assets one-to-one and those engaging in maturity transformation or credit intermediation, which can introduce systemic risk.

Trump, Congress, and the Clarity Act battle

The policy dispute has now reached Congress. On Tuesday, President Donald Trump used social media to urge lawmakers to advance the Clarity Act, while simultaneously criticizing banks for what he described as stalling tactics around its stablecoin provisions. He echoed Eric Trump’s claims that lobbying campaigns are blocking Americans from accessing more attractive on-chain savings products.

Donald Trump’s comments came shortly after a meeting with Brian Armstrong, CEO of Coinbase. Armstrong had previously withdrawn public support for the bill in January, citing concerns about how its stablecoin language and other sections might affect crypto innovation and compliance obligations for U.S. exchanges.

However, the renewed discussions signal that both the administration and industry players are still trying to find compromise language. Lawmakers face pressure from banks, digital-asset firms, and consumer advocates, all of whom frame the bill as pivotal for the future of U.S. leadership in tokenized finance.

Ongoing negotiations between banks and crypto firms

Behind the scenes, the White House has hosted a series of meetings throughout 2024 between traditional financial institutions and crypto companies. The aim is to narrow differences over how interest on tokenized dollars should be treated and to determine what kind of oversight is necessary for platforms offering digital savings products.

Moreover, participants in those talks say no final compromise has emerged on the role of interest-bearing digital dollars in the banking system. Bank representatives continue to warn of destabilizing deposit flight, while crypto executives argue that restrictive rules will drive innovation offshore and deny U.S. savers competitive returns.

As of now, there is still no agreement on how legislation such as the Clarity Act should resolve the stablecoin yields question. The outcome will determine whether regulated banks, new digital-asset firms, or a mix of both ultimately dominate the emerging market for tokenized dollar savings products.

In summary, the clash over stablecoin-linked returns has become a flashpoint between Wall Street, Washington, and crypto entrepreneurs. How regulators and lawmakers resolve it will shape the balance of power between banks and digital-asset platforms in the next phase of the U.S. financial system.