In a sharp escalation of the political battle over cryptocurrency regulation, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) is planning to block a high-profile GOP crypto hearing scheduled for Tuesday, May 6, 2025. The hearing, organized by the House Financial Services and House Agriculture Committees, was set to examine new legislation that would reshape crypto oversight in the United States. But Waters, the ranking Democrat on the Financial Services Committee, is taking a firm stand, arguing that any conversation about crypto policy must address the Trump family’s growing involvement in the industry.
Why Waters Is Objecting
Maxine Waters has informed colleagues that she intends to formally object to the crypto hearing, which, under House rules, requires unanimous consent to proceed. If she follows through, the move will cancel the joint session, effectively halting the GOP-led legislative effort, at least temporarily.
According to a Democratic aide familiar with the situation, Waters also plans to walk out with several Democratic members of the committee and hold a separate “shadow hearing.” That event will focus on the Trump family’s crypto ventures and the ethical implications they raise, highlighting what Democrats view as a serious conflict of interest.
This strategy is the latest attempt by Democrats to challenge Republican efforts to pass crypto-friendly legislation. Waters and other Democrats argue that ignoring Donald Trump’s financial ties to the crypto industry creates risks for both public trust and national security.
Timing and Context: The Bigger Picture
This showdown comes at a critical moment in Washington’s ongoing debate over digital asset regulation. Just a day before the scheduled crypto hearing – on Monday, May 5 – House Republicans released a draft bill that would split regulatory responsibilities between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The legislation aims to provide clearer rules for crypto markets, something industry leaders have long pushed for.
However, Democrats like Waters believe the bill is incomplete without stronger conflict-of-interest provisions. In particular, Waters is calling for explicit language in the legislation that would address and regulate financial activities linked to the Trump family.
On Saturday, May 3, Maxine Waters reportedly called House Financial Services Chair French Hill (R-Ark.) to explain that she would block the crypto hearing unless the bill was amended to include those provisions. Hill declined to make such a change.
Trump’s Crypto Ties Add Fuel to the Fire
At the heart of this political clash are the business activities of former President Donald Trump and his family. Trump launched a cryptocurrency company, World Liberty Financial, in September 2024 with his sons. The company recently issued a stablecoin called USD1 and secured a $2 billion investment from a venture fund tied to the Emirati government in Abu Dhabi. The venture has raised alarm among Democrats, who view it as a possible national security threat.
More recently, Trump promoted another token, $Trump, through his social media platform, Truth Social. Reports suggest that this coin has already generated more than $100 million in revenue for Trump and his close allies.
These developments have prompted a growing chorus of Democratic lawmakers to question how any crypto bill can move forward without first addressing what they call the “Trump Crypto Deals.” Some fear that new regulations, if not carefully written, could benefit Trump’s businesses directly or allow them to operate with minimal oversight.
GOP Pushes Back
Despite the criticism, Republicans remain committed to advancing their legislation. They argue that the proposed bill sets equal standards for all crypto companies, regardless of political affiliation or ownership.
Rep. Bryan Steil (R-Wis.), who chairs a Financial Services subcommittee on crypto, stated during an April markup that the legislation “places universal requirements on issuers of all stripes.” GOP leaders believe this approach keeps the law fair and balanced while promoting innovation.
Brooke Nethercott, a spokesperson for the Financial Services Republicans, issued a statement encouraging Waters to participate in the crypto hearing. “Since the last Congress, the committee has had productive bipartisan, bicameral discussions on market structure legislation,” Nethercott said. “We encourage the Ranking Member to attend tomorrow’s crypto hearing to express her views and reconsider her decision to object.”
So far, Republicans have resisted calls to insert any language that targets Trump’s crypto ventures specifically. Some moderate Democrats who are friendly to the crypto industry also appear reluctant to back Waters’ demands.
What Happens Next?
If Waters follows through on her threat, the crypto hearing will be canceled. This would mark a significant disruption in what had been a slow but steady legislative process. Democrats are preparing to hold their own event on the same day—Tuesday, May 6—where they will publicly raise concerns about political influence in the crypto market.
Behind the scenes, negotiations may still be underway. Lawmakers from both sides of the aisle continue to debate how to balance the need for innovation with transparency and ethics.
Meanwhile, the crypto industry is watching closely. The outcome of this standoff could shape the future of crypto regulation in the U.S., not just in terms of market rules, but also how political figures can or cannot participate in the financial system they help govern.
Final Thoughts
Waters’ decision to challenge the crypto hearing is more than just a procedural maneuver. It reflects a deeper divide over how to handle the intersection of politics, money, and emerging technologies. As Trump Crypto Deals remain in the headlines, lawmakers are being forced to answer tough questions: Can crypto be regulated fairly if powerful political families are financially involved? And should legislation explicitly address these conflicts?
The coming weeks will reveal whether a compromise is possible or if partisan gridlock will once again stall meaningful progress on crypto regulation.
