The advancement of comprehensive cryptocurrency market regulations in the United States is confronting substantial political and procedural headwinds that could push enactment to as late as 2029. Investment research firm TD Cowen has highlighted that President Donald Trump's substantial personal ties to the crypto industry, alongside shifting political incentives around the 2026 midterm elections, are creating hurdles that could extend the timeline for this legislation.
A central point of contention surrounds the conflict-of-interest provisions included in the proposed crypto market structure bill. These provisions seek to bar senior government officials and their immediate families, explicitly including President Trump, from owning or operating cryptocurrency businesses. According to estimates by Bloomberg, Trump and his family collectively have generated upwards of $620 million from ventures including World Liberty Financial—a decentralized finance and stablecoin enterprise that counts Trump and his three sons as co-founders.
The Trump family's crypto engagements also span equity stakes in companies such as American Bitcoin, a publicly traded bitcoin mining firm, as well as involvement in meme coins named Official Trump and MELANIA, which launched immediately prior to Trump's presidency. These holdings intensify concerns about conflicts of interest should the bill’s prohibitions come into force promptly.
Jaret Seiberg, an analyst at TD Cowen, described the proposed restrictions as a "nonstarter" for Trump unless the effective date of these measures is deferred by several years. He suggested one approach might be to introduce a three-year delay in applying the conflict-of-interest clauses following the legislation’s enactment. Such a deferral would effectively circumvent the restrictions during Trump's potential future terms, since the provisions would not apply until well after the next presidential inauguration.
However, Democrats are generally unlikely to accept a limited delay solely affecting conflict-of-interest rules. Seiberg noted that Democratic lawmakers would probably require a corresponding delay for the entire bill's implementation if such exemptions were granted to Trump, implying that the full legislation could be deferred by three years, which would stretch rollout beyond 2029.
Compounding these issues is the composition of the Senate, where overcoming a filibuster demands a 60-vote supermajority. This threshold means Republicans cannot unilaterally pass the legislation; they depend on securing support from at least seven to nine Democrats. This dynamic grants considerable leverage to the Democratic caucus, particularly with the 2026 midterm elections approaching.
From a strategic vantage point, Democrats might find it advantageous to delay the bill's passage until after the midterms. If they anticipate regaining control of the House of Representatives in November 2026, accelerating the bill's timeline would reduce their influence over the final regulatory framework. A postponement would push the bill’s effective date beyond the subsequent presidential election, allowing Democratic regulators, in the event of a 2028 Democratic presidential victory, to shape the detailed implementation and oversight mechanisms.
TD Cowen’s Seiberg summarized this timing consideration by asserting that "time favors enactment as the problems disappear if the bill passes in 2027 and takes effect in 2029." In other words, delaying both legislative approval and the regulatory start date mitigates the immediate challenges associated with Trump's crypto holdings and political uncertainty.
The importance of this legislation lies in its intent to establish a clear regulatory regime for digital assets in the United States. This framework would clarify roles among regulatory agencies and delineate the classification of various crypto assets. Despite the House of Representatives having passed its version of the bill last year, momentum toward final Senate approval has significantly slowed.
Senator Bernie Moreno (R-MI) has voiced frustration with the negotiation process, describing progress as "decently frustrating" and emphasizing his preference for no agreement over a substandard one. Concurrently, Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-SC) has acknowledged "real progress" in the discussions within recent months. Still, policy experts currently assess the bill's probability of passage in 2026 at around 50-60%, reflecting persisting uncertainties.
Notably, the broader cryptocurrency industry appears indifferent toward the conflict-of-interest provisions, primarily desiring the legislation to become effective during the Trump administration. This divergence between political and industry preferences underscores the complex obstacles impeding the bill’s advancement.