PlainBillCongress, translated.Legislation. Context. Public interest.Congressional Research Service
Version 00 · Introduced in House · Mar 26, 2025
Stablecoin Transparency and Accountability for a Better Ledger Economy Act of 2025 or the STABLE Act of 2025
This bill establishes a regulatory framework for payment stablecoins (digital assets which an issuer must redeem for a fixed value).
Under the bill, only permitted issuers may issue a payment stablecoin in the United States, subject to certain exceptions. Permitted issuers must be a subsidiary of an insured depository institution, a federal-qualified nonbank payment stablecoin issuer, or a state-qualified payment stablecoin issuer. Permitted issuers must be regulated by the appropriate federal or state regulator. A state regulator must certify that the state regulatory regime meets or exceeds federal requirements as established by the bill.
Showing the opening paragraphs of the official summary.
Permitted issuers must maintain reserves backing the stablecoin on a one-to-one basis using U.S. currency or other similarly liquid assets, as specified. Permitted issuers must also publicly disclose their redemption policy and publish monthly the details of their reserves.
The bill specifies requirements for (1) reusing reserves; (2) providing safekeeping services for stablecoins; and (3) supervisory, examination, and enforcement authority over federal-qualified issuers.
The bill places a two-year moratorium on new endogenously collateralized stablecoins (i.e., stablecoins that rely on the value of another digital asset created or maintained by the same originator to maintain the fixed price).
Under the bill, permitted payment stablecoins are not considered securities under securities law. However, permitted issuers are subject to the Bank Secrecy Act for anti-money laundering and related purposes.
People & committees
Rep. Steil, Bryan [R-WI-1] · R–WI
Legislative record
A procedural vote is different from passage. Passage in one chamber does not establish enactment. Explore the glossary.
Placed on the Union Calendar, Calendar No. 68.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-94.
Reported (Amended) by the Committee on Financial Services. H. Rept. 119-94.
Ordered to be Reported (Amended) by the Yeas and Nays: 32 - 17.
Committee Consideration and Mark-up Session Held
Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
Introduced in House
Introduced in House
Primary sources
Text links open the official source. We currently store references to these documents.
No related bills are listed in this snapshot. This does not establish whether the proposal has appeared in earlier Congresses.
Source last updated: Oct 9, 2025. Consult Congress.gov for the current record.
AI Conversation Starters
Choose a perspective, copy a prompt, and paste it into your preferred AI. Each prompt includes the bill version and available official source links, and asks for counterarguments as well as supporting evidence.
Analyze H.R.2392 as objectively as possible. Explain its main provisions, who would be affected, possible benefits and harms, implementation, exceptions, and uncertainties. Present the strongest arguments for and against it, and identify evidence needed to assess its public impact.
Examine H.R.2392 through a progressive lens, focusing on fairness, access, economic inequality, and effects on vulnerable communities. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and distinguish stated goals from demonstrated outcomes.
Examine H.R.2392 through a conservative lens, focusing on fiscal responsibility, institutional stability, federalism, and the scope of government. Explain potential benefits, costs, and unintended consequences. Consider the strongest counterarguments and any provisions that challenge this perspective.
Examine H.R.2392 through a civil-liberties and limited-government lens. Consider individual rights, privacy, voluntary choice, accountability, and government power. Explain tradeoffs, possible safeguards, and the strongest counterarguments without assuming the proposal is beneficial or harmful.