It was “Crypto Week” on Capitol Hill where the House of Representatives advanced a trio of Donald Trump–backed bills, which established first-ever rules around stablecoins and could lend more legitimacy to the Wild West industry. It was a win for the industry, and for Republicans, who once again fell in line behind the president. “The CLARITY Act, GENIUS Act, and Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act deliver on President Trump’s vision to make crypto a core pillar of the US economy and ensure America remains the global leader in this dynamic industry,” House Speaker Mike Johnson wrote on X on Thursday.
But Maxine Waters, ranking member of the House Financial Services Committee, was less optimistic when I got her on the phone late Thursday evening after the bipartisan vote: “They don’t talk about the possible pitfalls,” the 86-year-old told me, close to midnight in DC.
In an interview, which has been lightly edited for clarity and length, the California Democrat discussed her fears about the industry-friendly legislation, sounded off on the president’s personal crypto ventures, and warned that lawmakers may have opened the door to another financial crisis. “I do not think that Congress,” Waters told me, “should become an institution that falls prey to those who are able to spend tremendous resources in order to gain power and influence.”
Vanity Fair: What’s your reaction to these crypto bills getting through?
Maxine Waters: My reaction is we fought a good fight to try and educate the members of Congress on the danger of moving forward with crypto bills without guardrails, without making sure we can protect the investors, without making sure Trump should not, as the president of the United States, be the owner of [a crypto company]. We did our job. We knew that the crypto industry was going to be very powerful with the resources that they have, and that they were going to be basically advancing their cause, without going into any detail. And so I’m pleased that we did as well as we did.
What are some of your specific concerns?
Well, there are a number. For example, take Abu Dhabi—$2 billion dollars to put into Binance. Trump will earn millions of interest on what he has connected with Abu Dhabi. [Editor’s note: The Trump-connected crypto venture World Liberty Financial this spring announced that an Abu Dhabi investment firm would use its stablecoin to make an investment in Binance.] I’m worried that that is an example of foreign interests getting involved in the United States without oversight, without the kind of regulation that we would be able to control. So that’s a big concern. I’m concerned that the United States will, but should not have to, bail them out when there is failure if we don’t have the right kind of regulation. I’m concerned that the president has organized more power, in that he has said to all of the independent agencies, “You cannot develop the kind of oversight in your agencies without coming to the White House and the Office of Management and Budget. I have to see what you’re doing, and of course, control what you’re doing.” That is very dangerous—to take away the power of independent agencies like the SEC. This is dangerous, not only not to have guardrails, but to further empower the president and his family to use the presidency to gain more wealth and put other investors in harm’s way.
In an MSNBC op-ed, you warned that some of your colleagues may be making a mistake in supporting this legislation. Do you worry that members of the Democratic Party are too close to the crypto industry?
I’m worried that members period—not just Democrats, but too many members—that they get all this sense of new innovation, the future. And of course, I am not adamantly opposed to crypto, but I am adamantly opposed to not having guardrails and protections, and to having the president and his family own crypto in the way that it has emerged. So I’m worried about all of the members of Congress. I do not think that Congress should become an institution that falls prey to those who are able to spend tremendous resources in order to gain power and influence.
You wrote that the “flag of innovation” is being wrapped around—essentially—an old scam. Do you feel like the lobby has presented this as an inevitable thing?
Well, I think the story of innovation seems to be wrapped around the way that they present themselves. They don’t talk about the details of the Clarity bill and the Genius bill, and they don’t talk about the possible pitfalls of the way they have advanced this legislation. They kind of talk about, “This is the future.” They’re trying to appeal to people thinking not only futuristic, but thinking about the world that is going to be controlled by younger people, who are anxious to be involved in new ideas and new innovation.
