A Congressional Research Service (CRS) report published September 30, 2026, indicates that the regulatory framework for US banks engaging with digital assets is characterized by inconsistency and political influence rather than stable legal frameworks. The report, titled “Crypto and Bank-Permissible Activities” (IF13324), details how policy shifts by federal bank regulators—including the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC), the Federal Reserve, and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)—have been driven by changes in leadership and political administrations since at least 2017.
The CRS report finds that US banks’ ability to interact with digital assets such as Bitcoin is heavily influenced by these political tides. The report traces a pattern from pro-crypto policies under the Trump administration to a period of tighter regulations from 2021 to 2024 under the Biden administration. A subsequent shift occurred in March 2025 with OCC Interpretive Letter 1183, which eased some restrictions. According to the CRS, these changes, enacted through agency actions rather than new legislation, are reversible, contributing to significant regulatory uncertainty.
Consistent statutory guidelines play a diminished role compared to the preferences of many in the banking sector, the report states. The CRS highlights that the interpretation of digital asset activities can vary dramatically based on the prevailing political climate and the officials in charge at regulatory agencies. This creates an environment where the same activity might be viewed as a natural banking extension by one regulator and an unacceptable risk by another.
To address this instability, the CRS proposes three paths for lawmakers: continuing to defer to regulators, which risks perpetuating the cycle of policy reversals; enacting clear legislation to define permissible and prohibited activities; or adopting a hybrid approach.
Legislative efforts are underway, including the GENIUS Act (P.L. 119-27), enacted in July 2025, which permits stablecoin issuance by bank subsidiaries. The House has also passed the CLARITY Act (H.R. 3633). The CRS report suggests that if enacted, the CLARITY Act could establish a broader regulatory framework for crypto, explicitly allowing banks to use digital assets in authorized activities. However, the report cautions that passage by one chamber of Congress does not guarantee enactment into law.
This latest analysis builds on an earlier CRS report from February 2025 (R48430) that examined stricter regulatory measures following the collapses of FTX and Signature. The current report underscores that the framework for evaluating bank activities in the digital asset space lacks consistent answers due to regulatory disagreements and political influences.
Key uncertainties persist regarding the classification of specific crypto activities under ‘business of banking’ and ‘safety-and-soundness’ prongs, as well as the long-term stability of these regulations. The final legislative status of proposals like the CLARITY Act remains a significant factor in this ongoing uncertainty.
Why This Matters
The Congressional Research Service report highlights that US banks’ ability to engage with digital assets like Bitcoin is heavily influenced by changes in regulatory leadership and political administrations, rather than consistent statutory law. Uncertainties remain regarding whether specific crypto activities satisfy the ‘business of banking’ prong.
Broader Context
The report traces this pattern of regulatory shifts back to at least 2017.
