Key Highlights
- The GENIUS Act divided stablecoin rulemaking across Treasury, OCC, FDIC, FinCEN, OFAC, NCUA, the Federal Reserve and state regulators.
- Treasury set the policy perimeter, while OCC built the main federal issuer path and FDIC focused on bank-linked stablecoin activity.
- FinCEN and OFAC shaped the enforcement layer, while NCUA and the Fed added credit-union and banking-system oversight.
The U.S. government has spent nearly a year building the GENIUS Act stablecoin framework. But the GENIUS Act did not give that job to one agency. It scattered authority across Washington.
On paper it looks easy but in practice, the job is too complex evan to track who does what. The Treasury received the state-regime and financial-crime pieces. The OCC became the main federal gateway for issuers. The FDIC took the bank-linked route. FinCEN and OFAC moved into anti-money laundering and sanctions. The NCUA carved out the credit-union lane. The Federal Reserve stayed less visible, but remained central to the banking-system question.
That division is the real story behind the stablecoin rulebook.
The first part of this series looked at the July 18 deadline and the unfinished state of the rulebook. This second part looks inside the machinery: who is writing what, which agencies moved first, and why the GENIUS Act framework is being built in pieces rather than through one sweeping rule.
What Treasury did first
The Treasury moved early because the GENIUS Act gave it some of the most politically sensitive tasks. In August 2025, Treasury issued a request for comment on innovative methods to detect illicit activity involving digital assets. That was the first signal that implementation would not be limited to reserve quality. Treasury was also preparing to answer whether stablecoin issuers could detect, freeze, report and prevent illicit transactions across blockchain networks.
In September 2025, Treasury issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking seeking broader input on GENIUS Act implementation. The notice did not create new requirements, but it opened the door for banks, issuers, state regulators, exchanges, compliance firms and policy groups to shape Treasury’s rulemaking.
Treasury’s first formal proposed GENIUS Act rule came in April 2026. It focused on state-level regulatory regimes and the meaning of “substantially similar.” Under the law, issuers with not more than $10 billion in consolidated outstanding issuance may choose state regulation if the state framework is substantially similar to the federal framework.
That proposal opened one of the biggest fights in the law. If Treasury defines “substantially similar” narrowly, states could lose influence and more issuers may be pushed into federal supervision. If the Treasury defines it more flexibly, state regulators could continue shaping stablecoin oversight, especially in jurisdictions such as New York that already have digital-asset frameworks.
The Treasury then moved to illicit finance. In April 2026, FinCEN and OFAC issued a joint proposed rule to implement anti-money laundering and sanctions compliance obligations for permitted payment stablecoin issuers. The proposal would treat issuers as financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act and require them to maintain effective AML and sanctions programs.
That proposal was important, but it was not the end of the financial-crime rulemaking. On June 18, 2026, FinCEN, the FDIC, OCC, Federal Reserve, and NCUA requested comment on customer identification program requirements for permitted payment stablecoin issuers. The move follows the same compliance track, where identity checks became the latest pressure point in U.S. stablecoin supervision.
The timing is critical. The CIP proposal arrived exactly one month before the July 18, 2026 statutory rulemaking deadline. Under normal notice-and-comment procedure, a rule proposed that late cannot realistically be finalized before the deadline. Treasury has therefore done substantial work. But on the central question of whether the rulebook is final, the record still points to unfinished business.
OCC built the core federal issuer framework
The OCC has produced the most important single proposed rule in the GENIUS Act implementation process. In February 2026, the agency issued a proposed rule covering entities under its jurisdiction. The proposal applies to national banks and their subsidiaries, federal savings associations and their subsidiaries, federal branches and their subsidiaries, nonbank entities seeking approval as federal qualified payment stablecoin issuers, foreign payment stablecoin issuers, and certain state issuers over which the OCC has authority.
The OCC said the proposal addresses all GENIUS Act rules it is required to issue, except Bank Secrecy Act, anti-money laundering and OFAC sanctions rules being handled separately with Treasury. That made the OCC proposal the backbone of the federal stablecoin pathway.
The proposal covers activities, reserve assets, redemption, risk management, audits, reports, supervision, state-to-federal transitions, custody, applications, registrations, examination of foreign issuers, revocation of approval, capital and operational backstops. The rule also reveals where the hardest policy decisions sit. It asks how issuers should manage reserves, how quickly redemption must occur, how foreign issuers should report U.S.-customer activity, how regulators should measure capital for stablecoin businesses, and how custody arrangements should be tested.
The OCC continued building the machinery in June 2026 when it proposed weekly and quarterly reporting forms. The weekly form would cover payment stablecoin activity and reserves. The quarterly form would function more like a regulatory condition-and-income report for issuers and foreign payment stablecoin issuers registered with the OCC.
These reporting forms are far from cosmetic, they are the data pipelines regulators will use to supervise issuers once the regime is live. The OCC is preparing for a world where stablecoin issuers send routine information to federal examiners, much like regulated financial institutions do. But the forms also remain proposed. The March rule is proposed. The reporting structure is proposed. The OCC has built the outline of the federal pathway, but the final version is not yet visible in the public record.
FDIC focused on bank-linked stablecoins
The FDIC’s GENIUS Act work has focused on stablecoin activity connected to insured depository institutions. In December 2025, the agency issued a proposed rule to establish application procedures for FDIC-supervised institutions seeking approval to issue payment stablecoins through subsidiaries. This was the first gate for banks under FDIC supervision that wanted to enter the stablecoin market.
In April 2026, the FDIC approved another proposed rule to implement requirements and standards under the GENIUS Act. This second rule proposed a prudential framework for FDIC-supervised permitted payment stablecoin issuers, including reserve assets, redemption, capital and risk management standards.
The FDIC also addressed custody and safekeeping services related to payment stablecoins. That is a critical issue because stablecoin reserves and private keys create operational risks that do not fit neatly into older bank-supervision models.
The FDIC proposal also clarified the treatment of tokenized deposits. It said tokenized deposits that satisfy the statutory definition of deposit would be treated no differently under the Federal Deposit Insurance Act than any other deposit. Though payment stablecoins and tokenized deposits may look similar to users, legally they are not the same. A tokenized bank deposit remains a bank deposit. A payment stablecoin is issued under the GENIUS Act framework and is not the same as insured bank money.
In June 2026, the FDIC proposed additional Bank Secrecy Act and sanctions compliance standards for FDIC-supervised permitted payment stablecoin issuers. The agency’s work shows regulators are preparing banks for a stablecoin future. It also shows that the banking track is still being finalized in pieces.
Federal Reserve stayed less visible but remains central
The Federal Reserve has been less visible in public rulemaking than the OCC or FDIC, but it remains central to the GENIUS Act structure. Stablecoins touch the Fed’s core concerns: payment systems, bank liquidity, financial stability, monetary transmission and the role of bank-regulated money. If stablecoins become widely used for settlement, cash management or cross-border payments, the Fed’s view will matter even when another agency is the direct supervisor.
On June 4, 2026, Fed Vice Chair for Supervision Michelle Bowman told lawmakers that federal banking agencies were working to develop regulations for stablecoin issuers as required by the GENIUS Act. She described the statute as an opportunity to bring financial innovation into the regulated banking system with appropriate safeguards.
The statement is important because it confirms the Fed is part of the effort. It is also important because it does not announce a final framework. The Fed’s public position, as of mid-June, is that work is ongoing. That makes the Board part of the implementation architecture but also part of the unfinished picture.
This policy ambiguity leaves traditional banks hanging in the balance. The Fed’s final posture could decide whether banking organizations aggressively enter stablecoin issuance, focus on custody and reserve services, or limit themselves to tokenized deposits and settlement infrastructure. The same Fed policy environment has already shaped crypto markets, with Bitcoin slipping below $65K after the central bank held rates steady in June.
NCUA’s credit-union track is behind the clock
The NCUA has spent the year building the credit-union path into the GENIUS Act framework. In February 2026, the agency proposed rules dealing with investments in and licensing of permitted payment stablecoin issuers. In May, it announced a proposed rule outlining operational and risk management standards for NCUA-licensed permitted payment stablecoin issuers.
NCUA Chairman Kyle Hauptman said the proposal was designed to ensure credit unions face no disadvantage compared with other entities. The agency also said it had worked to align standards for NCUA-licensed issuers with standards proposed for bank subsidiaries.
The GENIUS Act was not written to give banks an exclusive stablecoin lane. Credit unions are part of the statutory architecture. But the timing is difficult. The comment period for the NCUA’s operational and risk-management proposal closes on July 17, 2026, one day before the July 18 rulemaking deadline.
That makes the NCUA track one of the clearest examples of an unfinished component. A proposal still open for comment on July 17 cannot become a normal final rule by July 18 without raising procedural concerns.
FinCEN and OFAC hold the compliance backbone
Reserve rules decide whether stablecoins are financially safe. FinCEN and OFAC rules decide whether they can operate inside the U.S. financial-crime regime. The GENIUS Act requires permitted payment stablecoin issuers to comply with anti-money laundering, counter-terrorist financing and sanctions obligations. That means issuers must behave more like regulated financial institutions than ordinary crypto software providers.
The April 2026 FinCEN/OFAC proposal would require permitted issuers to maintain effective AML and sanctions compliance programs. It also reflects Treasury’s attempt to tailor obligations to the stablecoin business model instead of simply copying bank rules. That compliance fight is already visible in Washington, where agencies have also moved on customer-identification requirements and lawmakers continue debating law enforcement concerns over digital assets.
That tailoring is where future disputes may emerge. Stablecoin issuers operate on blockchain networks with transactions that can move globally and instantly. Some activity occurs through hosted wallets. Some occurs through self-custody. Some stablecoins circulate through DeFi protocols without a direct issuer-customer relationship at the point of use.
The government’s challenge is to impose financial-crime controls without making compliant stablecoin use impossible. The late June 18 customer-identification proposal shows the hardest part is still being developed. Customer identification is the foundation of regulated financial activity. If regulators have not finalized how issuers must identify customers, then the compliance backbone is not complete.
SEC and CFTC moved around the edges
The SEC and CFTC are not the core GENIUS Act implementers in the same way as Treasury, OCC, FDIC, Fed and NCUA. But they still matter because stablecoins sit between securities markets, commodities markets, payments and collateral. The CFTC has already positioned itself around clearer crypto regulations, while lawmakers continue trying to settle the market-structure fight through CLARITY Act negotiations backed by more than 200 firms.
In March 2026, the SEC issued interpretive guidance discussing covered stablecoins and their treatment under securities laws. The guidance connected to the GENIUS Act’s broader effort to remove compliant payment stablecoins from the uncertainty that previously surrounded their legal status.
The CFTC also took adjacent action. It addressed payment stablecoins in the context of tokenized collateral, tying stablecoin treatment to regulated derivatives-market infrastructure. These moves do not complete the GENIUS Act rulebook. They do, however, show how the law is reshaping the surrounding regulatory environment. Stablecoins are no longer being treated only as crypto-market instruments. They are being pulled into securities, commodities, banking and payments infrastructure.
The GENIUS Act Rulebook, Agency by Agency
| Agency | What it did | Status | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|---|
| Treasury | ANPRM, state-regime proposal, foreign issuer role | Proposed / ongoing | Controls state and foreign issuer framework |
| OCC | Main issuer rule, reporting forms | Proposed | Builds federal path for issuers |
| FDIC | Bank subsidiary application and prudential rules | Proposed | Defines bank-linked stablecoin route |
| FinCEN / OFAC | AML, sanctions and CIP proposals | Proposed | Builds compliance backbone |
| NCUA | Credit-union issuer standards | Proposed | Opens credit-union path |
| Fed | Confirmed banking agency work | Ongoing | Shapes bank and financial-stability treatment |
| SEC / CFTC | Adjacent guidance and market-structure moves | Adjacent | Helps define stablecoin role outside banking law |
The outside pressure from CLARITY
The GENIUS Act is the stablecoin law. But it is not the only digital-asset fight in Washington.
The CLARITY Act debate is unfolding around it, with lawmakers still weighing market structure, agency jurisdiction, DeFi treatment and stablecoin reward rules and agency oversight.
That matters because the GENIUS Act regulates payment stablecoin issuers, while CLARITY seeks to define the broader market in which those stablecoins will circulate. Stablecoins are used on exchanges, in DeFi, in payment apps and as settlement assets. The issuer rulebook cannot be fully separated from the market-structure rulebook.
CFTC Chair Michael Selig has also framed the agency’s approach as part of a push toward clearer crypto regulations. That broader shift matters because it shows how Washington is trying to move digital-asset policy out of enforcement fights and into written rules.
GENIUS is the stablecoin piece. CLARITY is the market-structure piece. Together, they show how the U.S. is trying to rebuild crypto oversight through legislation and agency rulemaking at the same time.
The rulebook is being stitched together
The GENIUS Act did not create one stablecoin regulator.
It created a map of power.
Treasury controls the policy perimeter. OCC controls much of the federal issuer gate. FDIC controls the bank path. FinCEN and OFAC control the enforcement layer. NCUA controls the credit-union lane. The Federal Reserve sits behind the banking-system risk. SEC and CFTC shape the surrounding market structure.
That is why the rulebook is hard to finish.
A stablecoin issuer will not be able to comply by reading one document. It will need to understand the issuer application rule, reserve rule, redemption rule, custody rule, reporting rule, state-regime rule, foreign issuer rule, AML rule, sanctions rule and customer-identification rule.
Washington is not writing a single stablecoin rulebook. It is stitching together several.
That is the second story of the GENIUS Act: not whether regulators moved, but how they divided the work.
Also Read: The Final 30 Days: Will America Get Its GENIUS Act Stablecoin Rulebook?
