US Crypto Rules Keep Changing. Why Bitcoin Needs a Lasting Law

Congress has struggled to write a durable US framework for crypto. The Senate's failure to advance the CLARITY Act shows that ethics concerns can block a bill even when banks and crypto companies broadly support clearer rules.

For Bitcoin holders, the practical question is narrower: can a bank keep providing custody and settlement services when the next administration changes its leadership?

Bank Rules Have Changed With Leadership

The Congressional Research Service says the US approach has been ad hoc, piecemeal and inconsistent across agencies because Congress has not created an overarching crypto statute.

The record since 2017 shows how much leadership matters. Trump appointees approved specified crypto activities case by case when banks could do so safely and soundly. Biden appointees required supervisory approval before a bank could undertake any crypto activity.

That is a broad policy difference, not a minor change in enforcement.

Federal regulators have also changed their treatment of custody. In March 2025, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency withdrew its Biden-era non-objection requirement for several digital-asset services through Interpretive Letter 1183.

The change did not produce one national policy. The Federal Reserve and FDIC had not withdrawn the 2023 joint statement governing state-chartered banks. Its language made it highly unlikely that a bank could issue, hold or transfer crypto on an open public network. Regulators did not call that language a prohibition, but its effect was close to one.

This is what a holder should watch. Access to banking custody can depend on the regulator supervising that bank, the specific service requested and the language of a leadership-era statement.

A Law Would Replace Direction With Rules

The Congressional Research Service argues that legislation could lock in a chosen level of bank involvement in crypto, from a total ban to unrestricted involvement. Congress would decide the boundary instead of leaving it to regulators whose policies can change after an election.

But the verified record does not identify the exact bank requirements in a pending durable framework. It shows who could write those requirements and why. It does not establish that current legislation would permit Bitcoin settlement on public networks, require banks to offer custody or impose a specific capital treatment.

That distinction matters. A statute could preserve a role for banks without requiring banks to enter crypto. It could also require authorisation while leaving room for regulators to impose risk controls.

Law would not make the underlying assets safe. The CRS says volatile, pseudonymous and decentralised products still carry risks that a legislative framework cannot remove.

CLARITY Failed on Ethics, Not The SEC-CFTC Split

The Senate voted 50 to 49 on September 15, 2026, short of the 60 votes needed for its motion to proceed.

The CLARITY Act would divide oversight between the SEC and CFTC, establish registration requirements and strengthen anti-money-laundering protections. Those provisions were not identified as the main obstacle.

Democratic concerns about President Trump and his family profiting from crypto ventures were. Republican leaders added ethics restrictions to address those concerns, but Senator Ruben Gallego said the compromise did not buy enough Democratic votes.

Bitcoin fell 3% during the broader sell-off that day. Coinbase shares fell 8% and Circle shares fell 10%.

That reaction showed the market wanted progress. It did not show that passage would solve custody or settlement.

SAB 121 Shows Why Accounting Rules Matter

A bank may be allowed to hold Bitcoin and still face an accounting burden that makes the business impractical.

The CRS says the SEC's former SAB 121 would have triggered capital requirements likely to make crypto custody economically infeasible for publicly listed banks if they had to follow it. The SEC rescinded SAB 121 in Staff Accounting Bulletin 122 in January 2025.

The repeal did not erase every balance-sheet liability. However, the available analysis says it removed the likelihood that banks would have to apply SAB 121's one-to-one asset-to-liability treatment to customer crypto.

For a holder, that difference can be more important than a ceremonial announcement about bank access. A bank willing to custody Bitcoin has little use for the service if accounting rules make it too expensive to offer.

The SEC's October 2026 custody proposal takes a different approach. The proposal would allow registered advisers to hold certain client and fund crypto when no qualified custodian is available, while admitting state-chartered trust companies. It is not a final rule and does not specifically settle bank access to Bitcoin.

The Durable Test

Statute would give Bitcoin custody and settlement a stronger footing only if it does three things:

• It must decide how much authority banks receive to hold and transfer crypto on public networks.
• It must set accounting and capital obligations that do not make permitted services economically unusable.
• It must preserve that framework when regulators change their priorities.

The case for legislation is strongest because US bank policy has repeatedly moved with presidential appointments and agency leadership. The CLARITY Act's failure shows that Congress still struggles to turn that case into law.

Until it does, Bitcoin custody at US banks remains less durable than a stablecoin issuer may appear from its charter. Rules can permit access in one administration and narrow it in another.