Most important jobs require training. We have to pass a test to drive; accredited education is required for health professionals, yet there is no testing process to prepare parents for the enormous responsibility of raising moral and well-adjusted kids. To that end, I’ve assembled ten helpful points for raising a mentally healthy child.

1. Don’t assume they know. Kids are not born with knowledge that we adults take for granted, e.g., that they should eat healthy food, or that they must think before they act. Even so, they should be held responsible for their actions. If you don’t correct them for lying, hitting or whatever, how else will they know that these behaviors are wrong?
2. Keep perspective. Your child doesn’t disobey just to irritate you. Childhood is a learning process, so don’t take it personally when they test your limits. It’s an opportunity to teach them right from wrong.
3. Permissive vs. restrictive: Permissive parents reason with their children but don’t punish them. Restrictive parents punish their kids but won’t reason with them. Give your kids the reasons why they should act a certain way. Children are more likely to follow rules if you let them ask questions and give them reasonable answers. Use punishment only if reason fails.
4. Constructive feedback: Incentives are often more powerful than punishments. But don’t reward a child for doing the bare minimum, such as going to school or being minimally civil. Save the rewards for extraordinary actions such as acting on their own judgment rather than peer pressure. Positive feedback is crucial for building confidence!
5. You have the final say! A family is not a democracy. But always explain and discuss, not just command. If a child makes a logical point that proves you wrong, be an adult and stand corrected. This will teach your child that it’s healthy and affirming to ask questions, and that reason can create solutions.
6. All kids are different. A difficult child needs consistency. Resist the temptation to control everything. Instead, choose your punishments. Pick out the most important offenses and punish consistently for them. Holding your ground on one issue can often lead to success in other areas, because whatever respect for you that’s developed can generalize to other behaviors. Respect can be more effective than warm fuzzy feelings.
7. Don’t fall for labels! Popular disease labels such as “attention deficit disorder” or “conduct disorder” (many of which are currently being debunked) distract from the fact that your child is capable of making choices and being responsible for them. Help him make better choices, rather than blaming laziness or nastiness on some made-up illness. Even if pills, such as Ritalin, appear to improve behaviors, they don’t change the fact that kids make choices. In the end, no pill can make her do her homework — or choose her core values.
8. Encourage self-interest. If you tell your child to not be “selfish,” you’re implying he should not act in his own self-interest. How far does that go? He should NOT study hard in school? She should NOT treat her friends respectfully? All of these actions are in their self-interest. Explain why it’s to her benefit to respect the rights of others, etc. This is more motivating than just, “Put others before yourself.” Respect for oneself and the rights of others does not mean sacrifice of one’s privacy, property, and happiness.
9. Don’t discourage thinking. Don’t punish a child for what she thinks or feels. You can express disapproval, but punishing thoughts and feelings discourages independent thinking and encourages repression which can lead to psychological problems.
10. Promote reality! Reasonable punishment does not damage self-esteem. It demonstrates the nature of reality. Adults have to make rational choices, but a child is not born with a grasp of these principles, and won’t learn them unless he or she is taught to think logically and to accept responsibility.

Challenge kids to think critically. Withhold support when they behave irrationally. Don’t count on teachers and day-care workers to communicate these virtues. You must do the bulk of the work if your kids are to grow into healthy and happy adults.

Michael J. Hurd, Life’s a Beach

“The issue I am raising is not a partisan issue,” CIA Director Tulsi Gabbard said in her announcement, backed up by a highly redacted, declassified report posted online. “It is one that concerns every American. The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government … As such, I am providing all documents to the Department of Justice to deliver the accountability that President Trump, his family, and the American people deserve.”

Does this mean treason charges against Barack Obama and all connected to him in this case? Nothing less will satisfy millions of Americans who actually still love liberty, justice and the American republic.

Until leftists are afraid, the rest of us cannot feel secure in our freedom. Obama is part of the head of the snake. Make him afraid and miserable, President Trump. You are our last chance for real justice.

When the CIA Director says a former President is guilty of treason, it’s big news. When that former President is in an orange jumpsuit or facing the penalty for treason, that’s REALLY big news.

Bring it on.

Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael Hurd” (Charleston SC). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on X at @MichaelJHurd1, drmichaelhurd on Instagram, @DrHurd on TruthSocial. Dr. Hurd is also now a Newsmax Insider!

It may be time for the federal government to step in and liberate California.

There’s not much democracy in California. Between ballot harvesting, top-down control and a state so gerrymandered that 41% of the Republican voters have virtually no representation, Gov. Gavin Newsom announced that he’s preparing a plan to abolish what’s left of democracy in California. The goal is to reduce Republican representation from 9 seats to 4 or 3.

Now remember this is in a state where Trump won 38% of the vote, but where Republicans have only 17% of the seats, which Newsom would like to bring down to 5% or 7%.

Newsom does have a ‘democratic’ problem here. An actual democratic problem in that Proposition 11, a move backed by Schwarzenegger, liberals and various liberal ‘sorta Republicans’ (and violently opposed by Pelosi and the Dems) created a semi-independent redistricting commission. The commission doesn’t work very well, but it’s better than the alternative.

And to executive his dream map,  Newsom now needs to sideline or bypass the commission which is illegal, but legality is a minor point when you control the political and judicial system. The current plan is to try and convince ‘voters’ to set aside the commission or just ignore the commission and redraw the districts anyway so that over 40% of the state is reduced to 5% representation.

At that point, what really distinguishes California from Venezuela except better beaches?

If Gov. Newsom goes ahead with his plan to politically disenfranchise half the state, it may be time for the federal government to step in and to treat California like the third world Communist dictatorship it aspires to be… and liberate it.

Daniel Greenfield, a Shillman Journalism Fellow at the David Horowitz Freedom Center, is an investigative journalist and writer focusing on the radical Left and Islamic terrorism.

by Hans von Spakovsky, Daily Signal

In their attempts to thwart federal enforcement of our immigration laws, politicians like Democrat state Rep. James Hawkins of Massachusetts apparently want to make it even easier for Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents (and their families) to be doxed, harassed, and attacked.

It’s hard to come to any other conclusion when, in the face of the open defiance and violence against these agents, Hawkins drops a bill in the Massachusetts Legislature that would force those federal agents to unmask so they can be identified by hostile mobs.

House Docket No. 4886 would apply to all “local, state, or federal law enforcement” agencies (except for SWAT officers) and make it a crime for them to “wear any mask or personal disguise while interacting with the pubic in the performance of their duties.”

Hawkins has tried to justify his interference with, and endangerment of, federal agents by claiming that “police officers never wear masks and they are dealing with much more dangerous situations. They’re dealing with gunfire, with violent people, and they don’t wear masks.” Really?! Has Hawkins not been watching and reading the news lately?

Attacks on ICE agents are up 700% over last year. While the rest of us were celebrating Independence Day, an armed group ambushed ICE agents and local police at a detention center in Alvarado, Texas, wounded an officer, and sprayed anti-ICE graffiti. On the same day, violent protesters in Portland, Oregon, hurled incendiary devices at ICE officers and tried to burn down a government building. Only three days later, a Border Patrol facility in McAllen, Texas, was shot at, and two agents and a staffer were injured.

Two days later, ICE agents in California were physically attacked and blocked from enforcing federal immigration laws. There has been massive mob violence in Los Angeles, so severe that federal troops had to be called in to restore order and protect federal agents and facilities.

Democrat politicians and organizations are supporting and encouraging this defiance and violence.

Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez of New York has praised these agitators as “profoundly courageous,” while her “squad” cohort Rep. Ilhan Omar of Minnesota calls ICE agents “deranged.” Boston City Councilor Kendra Lara has celebrated the occupation of ICE buildings while Rep. Ayanna Pressley of Massachusetts has vilified ICE and lauded illegal obstruction of federal law enforcement.

They sound a lot like Southern Democrats of another era, who declared that state officials and state governments had a right to nullify federal laws and resist their enforcement.

In addition to his obliviousness to this violence, Hawkins (a former teacher, no less), along with the 16 other constitutionally ignorant state legislators who signed on to sponsor his bill, are apparently unaware of the supremacy clause in Article VI of the U.S. Constitution.

The supremacy clause provides that the “laws of the United States” are “the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.” In other words, neither Hawkins nor the state of Massachusetts can impose state requirements on federal law enforcement agents, nor prosecute them for supposedly committing a state crime when acting within the scope of their federal duties.

The U.S. Supreme Court threw out the prosecution, ordered the marshal’s release from jail, and held that a state cannot prosecute an official or agent of the federal government for discharging his duties as an officer of the United States. This also means that neither Hawkins nor any state government can impose requirements or restrictions on federal law enforcement officials, such as ICE agents, on how and when they carry out their duties. Period.

Hawkins might want to read the well-known 1890 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, In re Neagle, which has facts like something out of a Hollywood movie. In that case, California tried to prosecute a U.S. marshal for murder when he shot and killed a state Supreme Court justice who, upset over a judgment against his wife, was attempting to kill a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court who was in California riding the circuit.

If Hawkins and his fellow Democrats go to the Boston Common, they will find the bronze sculpture of the 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment. The 54th was the gallant, all-Black Union regiment that fought in the Civil War to end slavery and the defiance of Southern state governments to the Constitution and laws of the United States.

Perhaps that sculpture will remind them that we settled the question of whether state officials like Hawkins can defy federal law in 1864. Back then, the state of Massachusetts was on the right side of this issue. Hawkins’ political party was not.

Originally published by The Washington Times

Trump intelligence chief accuses ex-president and others of ‘treasonous conspiracy’ for alleging Russian interference

Tulsi Gabbard, the director of national intelligence, has called for Barack Obama and former senior US national security officials to be prosecuted after accusing them of a “treasonous conspiracy” intended to show that Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential election win was due to Russian interference.

She said Obama and senior officials in his administration had “[laid] the groundwork for … a years-long coup” against Trump after his victory over Hillary Clinton by “manufacturing intelligence” to suggest that Russia had tried to influence the election. That included using a dossier prepared by a British intelligence analyst, Christopher Steele, that they knew to be unreliable, Gabbard claimed.

The post-election intelligence estimates contrasted with findings reached before the election, which indicated that Russia probably was not trying to interfere.

In extraordinary comments calling for prosecutions, she added: “The information we are releasing today clearly shows there was a treasonous conspiracy in 2016 committed by officials at the highest level of our government.

“Their goal was to subvert the will of the American people and enact what was essentially a years-long coup with the objective of trying to usurp the President from fulfilling the mandate bestowed upon him by the American people.

“No matter how powerful, every person involved in this conspiracy must be investigated and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, to ensure nothing like this ever happens again. The American people’s faith and trust in our democratic republic and therefore the future of our nation depends on it.”

Gabbard, a former Democratic member of Congress, said she was passing documents supporting her case to the justice department. They included a partially redacted intelligence community assessment from the Obama administration on cyber threats to the 2016 election and a series of previously classified memos, including some from the office of James Clapper, who served as Obama’s director of national intelligence.

Clapper is one of several officials named by Gabbard as apparently implicated in the supposed conspiracy. Others include John Brennan, the former CIA director, John Kerry, the then secretary of state, Susan Rice, the national security adviser at the time, Andrew McCabe, the then deputy FBI director, who later fell foul of Trump, and Obama himself.

The attempt to return the spotlight back to the Russia investigation – long derided by Trump as a “hoax” – comes as the US president finds himself in the maelstrom of the lingering scandal over the disgraced financier Jeffrey Epstein, who was found dead in his prison cell in 2019 while awaiting prosecution on sex-trafficking charges.

The Trump administration has come under mounting pressure from the president’s make America great again (Maga) base to release files on the case, including a supposed list of Epstein’s influential clients.

Trump, in response, has variously dismissed the existence of such files or said they were invented by Obama and members of his administration, including James Comey, the former FBI director, and Joe Biden, vice-president in the Obama administration.

Commentary accompanying a series of Obama-era memos published by Gabbard’s office uses terms characteristic of Trump and his most ardent supporters to paint an alleged conspiracy to discredit his 2016 win.

Following a meeting on 9 December 2016 of Obama’s most senior national security team, the document – entitled the Russia Hoax – says: “Deep State officials in the IC [intelligence community] beg leaking blatantly false intelligence to the Washington Post … claiming that Russia used “cyber means” to influence “the outcome of the election.

“Later that evening, another leak to the Washington Post falsely alleges that the CIA “concluded in a secret assessment that Russia intervened” in the election to help President Trump.”

On 6 January the following year, the document continues: “The Obama administration shares the unclassified ICA [intelligence community assessment] with the public. It falsely alleges, based in part on ‘further information’ that had ‘come to light’ since the election, that Putin directed an effort to help President Trump defeat Hillary Clinton. This ‘further information’ is later confirmed to be the Steele dossier.”

The assessment “suppressed” previous pre-election assessments that Russia lacked the intent or means to successfully hack the poll, Gabbard’s report alleges.

The Steele dossier, which contained salacious details of “kompromat” allegedly held by Russian intelligence on Trump, formed part of the basis for a lengthy investigation conducted by Robert Mueller, who was appointed as special counsel into the Russia affair. Mueller’s subsequent report concluded that Russia interfered “in sweeping and systematic fashion” in the election campaign but “did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated” with the Russian government’s activities.

Gabbard’s nomination as national intelligence director was one of Trump’s most contentious. It drew criticism because of her lack of previous intelligence experience, having never even served on a congressional committee on the subject, and a track record of supportive comments about Russia’s President Vladimir Putin and repeating Kremlin talking points on the war with Ukraine.

The Guardian

In one of the most explosive revelations in modern political history, newly declassified documents confirm what millions of Americans suspected all along: the Obama administration orchestrated a deliberate effort to sabotage President Donald Trump after his 2016 election victory. A new report released Friday found that Intelligence officials at the highest levels, acting under direction from the Obama administration, weaponized false information and manipulated national security agencies to undermine the will of the American people.

Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard revealed new evidence confirming that the Obama administration and his national security cabinet members manufactured and politicized intelligence to lay the groundwork for what was essentially a years-long coup against President Trump following the 2016 election. The report confirms that this wasn’t just a political game, but a direct attack on the American people in a coordinated effort to turn the will of Americans.

Despite no credible evidence, former President Barack Obama and his team worked to manipulate the Russia collusion narrative, which deliberately subverted the democratic process and the voters’ will. After President Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016, the Obama administration took it upon themselves to weaponize the intelligence community to push a false narrative designed to delegitimize and overturn Trump’s victory.

Gabbard stated that the documents she released reveal a treasonous conspiracy by top U.S. government officials in 2016, aimed at undermining the will of the American people and orchestrating a years-long coup to prevent the President from carrying out the mandate given to him by voters. The intelligence agencies under Obama were turned into political tools to deceive the public and sabotage a sitting president. As a result, the false information peddled by the Obama administration led to years of unnecessary division and chaos.

The Obama administration deliberately manipulated intelligence to push a false Russia collusion narrative, undermining the legitimacy of a fair and free election. For years, President Trump was at the end of the so-called “Russian collusion” scandal that has so far been one of the biggest political witch hunts in American history. The hoax wasted years and millions of taxpayer dollars, resulting in baseless investigations and multiple failed impeachment attempts. Not only that, it almost damaged Trump’s reputation. I say almost, because he made the biggest comeback in history.

Over the past 48hrs, the skies over Syria have lit up with fire once again. Islamic militias–radical factions with deep ties to jihadist ideology–have launched coordinated assaults on the Druze community, particularly near the Golan Heights. In response, Israel has taken swift and decisive action to defend the Druze, bombing over a hundred Syrian military and militia-linked targets. It was only last week that there was talk of a possible peace accord between Israel and Syria.  It’s hard to see how that will now happen anytime soon.

The Druze, a small ethnoreligious group with a long and complex history in the Middle East, have long maintained relative peace with Israel. Many Druze serve in the Israeli Defense Forces, and their villages dot the borderlands of the Golan. For Israel, allowing radical Islamic militias to overrun Druze territory would not only be a humanitarian betrayal but also a strategic disaster. The defense of the Druze is not only a moral imperative for Israel–it’s a national security one.

But this flare-up is not happening in a vacuum. Syria’s so-called “new leadership”–which was hoped by some international observers to usher in a fresh era of diplomacy–has proven to be little more than a reshuffled collection of old actors cloaked in new robes. Though the civil war has left Syria fractured and fatigued, Islamic fundamentalists still hold influence across swaths of territory, especially where central government control is weak or absent. The promise of reform has quickly withered under the weight of warlord politics, regional interference, and extremist dogma.

This particular escalation may seem localized and containable, especially given Israel’s military might and technological advantage. Yet it serves as a chilling reminder of how volatile the region remains. While Israel’s air force may succeed in pushing back these militias today, the underlying forces–religious extremism, regional ambition, and deep historical grievances–are not so easily extinguished.

And this brings us to an ancient warning–a prophetic one–found in the pages of Scripture. In Isaiah 17:1, we read a stunning declaration: “See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins.”

Think about that for a moment. Damascus is not just any city–it is one of the oldest continuously inhabited cities in the world. For over 5,000 years, it has survived conquest, empire, and war. Even today, despite years of civil war and devastation, Damascus remains a functioning city. And yet, Isaiah prophesied its utter and total destruction–a complete ceasing of habitation.

Critics have long dismissed this prophecy as either symbolic or already fulfilled in antiquity. But the specificity of Isaiah’s words paints a very different picture. This isn’t just a city invaded or damaged. It’s a city that ceases to exist. A “ruinous heap” that “will disappear from the face of the earth.”

And yet here we are, 2,600 years later, with Damascus still standing–but increasingly surrounded by instability, terror groups, and foreign militaries who have little regard for human life. What happens if a missile strike goes wrong? What if a chemical weapons depot is accidentally–or intentionally–ignited? What if Iran’s tentacles extend too far once again and provoke an overwhelming Israeli response?

We are not predicting the immediate fulfillment of Isaiah’s prophecy. But we are seeing the edges of the page curl. We are watching as the world’s oldest city–so central to history, religion, and conflict–is once again drawn into a battle not just of ideologies but of destinies.

It is important for believers to recognize these flare-ups not as random chaos but as echoes of God’s Word. The God who sees the end from the beginning did not include these prophecies for curiosity’s sake. They are markers–warnings–signposts in the storm that remind us history is not aimless. It is under divine supervision.

The situation in Syria today may simmer down tomorrow. Israel may succeed in halting the militias. The Druze may find reprieve. But the pressure continues to build beneath the surface of Damascus. One day, in God’s time, the prophecy will be fulfilled. And when it is, the world will look on in awe–not merely at the destruction, but at the accuracy of a Word written millennia before.

Until then, we must watch, pray, and remain sober-minded. Because the ruins of Damascus are not just a warning to Syria–they are a reminder to the whole world that the final chapters are already written.

Prophecy News Watch Staff

I was Jeffrey Epstein’s lawyer. I know the facts, some of which I can’t disclose because it is privileged or subject to court-imposed sealing orders. But what I can disclose makes several important things clear:

Opinion: Potomac Watch

MAGA Supporters and Democrats Seize on the Jeffrey Epstein ControversySubscribe

Explore Audio Center

Epstein never created a “client list.” The FBI interviewed alleged victims who named several “clients.” These names have been redacted. They should be disclosed but the courts have ordered them sealed. I know who they are. They don’t include any current officeholders. We don’t know whether the accusations are true. The courts have also sealed negative information about some of the accusers to protect them. Neither the Justice Department nor private defense lawyers are free to disregard court sealing orders. The media can and should petition the courts for the release of all names and information so the public can draw its own conclusions.

There has also been speculation about incriminating videos taken by hidden cameras in Epstein’s guest bedrooms. There are videotapes, but they are of public areas of his Palm Beach, Fla., home. Epstein reported the theft of money and a licensed firearm from a drawer in his living room, so the police installed a video camera. I am not aware of video cameras in guest bedrooms.

Open records show an acquaintance between Epstein and Mr. Trump many years ago. That relationship ended when Mr. Trump reportedly banned Epstein from Mar-a-Lago, long before becoming president. I have seen nothing that would suggest anything improper or even questionable by Mr. Trump.

It is clear from the evidence that Epstein committed suicide. What isn’t clear is whether he was assisted by jail personnel. That seems likely to me, based on the evidence of allegedly broken cameras, transfer of his cellmate and the absence of guards during relevant time periods.

I have absolutely no doubt that Epstein never worked for any intelligence agency. If he had, he would surely have told me and his other lawyers, who would have used that information to get him a better deal. (He wasn’t satisfied with the so-called sweetheart deal he got, which required him to spend 1½ years in a local jail and register as a sex offender.) My sources in Israel have confirmed to me that he had no connection to Israeli intelligence. That false story—recently peddled by Tucker Carlson—probably emanated from credible allegations that Robert Maxwell (1923-91), father of Epstein’s former girlfriend, Ghislaine Maxwell, worked with the Mossad.

Conspiracy stories attract readers, viewers and listeners. They are also fodder for political attacks. The Epstein case has generated more than its share of such theories, and there is nothing more annoying to gossip mongers than when stubborn facts (or the absence of facts) get in the way of a juicy theory. Sorry to disappoint you, but there is really nothing much to see here, beyond what has already been disclosed.

Mr. Dershowitz is a professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and author of “The Preventive State: The Challenge of Preventing Serious Harms While Preserving Essential Liberties.”

Amid historic immigration crackdown and stricter border enforcement under the Trump administration, a stunning new trend is emerging: nearly 100 percent of all new jobs in America are going to foreign-born workers, while native-born Americans are being left behind. According to new data, President Donald Trump has reversed the trend established by the Biden administration, which favored hiring foreign-born candidates. 

The report, from the Washington Stand, found that President Trump’s mass deportation program, removing illegal immigrants, especially illegal alien criminals, from the United States, is having a positive effect on the job market.  The U.S. Department of Labor announced this month that “native-born workers have accounted for ALL job gains since January.” 

Since the pandemic, nearly all net job growth—around 4.7 million jobs out of 5.4 million—has been taken by foreign-born workers, while native-born employment has increased by just over 650,000.

However, economics editor and attorney John Carney explained that U.S. jobs aren’t just going to people who are legal residents of the United States, but actually going to  American-born people. 

“This is very important, again, because that’s fundamentally who the country is supposed to work for, for the people we have here. And it is working for them again, for us again,” he said. 

Under the Biden administration, each month saw fewer native-born Americans employed while more foreign-born workers got jobs. That meant the net job growth benefited foreign workers. However, now under President Trump, that pattern has shifted, and the net increase in jobs is going to native-born Americans instead. Trump’s policies are seen as prioritizing American workers first, reversing a tilt toward foreign labor under the Biden administration. 

Carney pointed out that one significant side effect is rising wages, as businesses can no longer rely solely on a steady flow of new workers to fill jobs.

“Without that, they have to start bidding against each other, basically a competitive bidding war for American workers. And that’s what we’re seeing in the wage gains,” he said. 

A recent June jobs report from the Labor Department revealed a sharp drop of 348,000 foreign-born workers from the previous month, with a total decline of over 543,000 since January. In contrast, U.S.-born workers saw a gain of 830,000 from May to June alone, bringing the total increase to more than 2 million since the start of President Trump’s second term in January.

“For the FOURTH month in a row, jobs numbers have beat market expectations with nearly 150,000 good jobs created in June,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said earlier this month. “American-born workers have accounted for ALL of the job gains since President Trump took office, and wages continue to rise.” 

Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump, illegal immigration into our great country has virtually stopped. Despite the radical left’s lies, new legislation wasn’t needed to secure our border, just a new president.

By Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge • Jul. 19, 2025

On Thursday, July 17, capping off what was dubbed “Crypto Week” by Congress, the US House just passed three digital assets related bills. Here is a breakdown of all that was passed:

The GENIUS Act:

The Senate’s stablecoin bill, by a vote of 308-122. By bringing regulatory clarity to the asset class, the law is expected to stimulate the growth of the stablecoin industry. The GENIUS Act first passed the Senate on June 17 by a vote of 68-30, with 18 Democrats supporting the bill and 2 Republicans (Senators Hawley and Paul) voting against it. Two Senators were not present (Senators Cotton and Kelly). Broadly, the GENIUS Act creates a regime for the issuance and regulation of U.S. dollar-backed payment stablecoins. By bringing regulatory clarity to the asset class, the legislation, if passed into law, is expected to stimulate the growth of the stablecoin industry.

What the bill does
The bill sets forth standards for regulatory oversight, striking a balance between federal and state authorities.

The bill allows payment stablecoins to be issued by subsidiaries of banks and non-bank entities. Banks would be overseen by their primary federal regulator, while non-bank entities would be overseen at a federal level by the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC) or under qualifying state

Sets up reserve requirements, supervision and enforcement, ie at least 1 to 1 backing with U.S. dollars, short-term Treasuries (93 days or less), or similarly liquid assets.
Requires Bank Secrecy Act (BSA)/Anti-money Laundering (AML) compliance for issuers.

Mandates insolvency requirements with customer protections.

Other Key Provisions of the bill
Bank Permissibility:
Banks can issue stablecoins and act “as a principal or agent with respect to any payment stablecoin and payment of fees to facilitate customer transactions.”
Preserves current custody practices, allowing banks to hold stablecoin reserves under existing rules.
Carves out tokenized deposits from the legislation.
Federal licensing preemption: Federal licensing supersedes and preempts any state licensing requirement for any federally chartered payment stablecoin issuer.
Bank Secrecy Act / Anti-Money Laundering Requirements: Issuers shall be treated as a financial institution for the purposes of the Bank Secrecy Act; Issuers (domestic and foreign) must demonstrate the ability to freeze or burn tokens.
“SAB 121” prevention clause: Prevents federal regulators from requiring custodied digital assets to be held on balance sheet.
Capital treatment: A non-permitted stablecoin can NOT be treated as a cash or cash equivalent for accounting purposes.

Fed Master Accounts: The bill stays neutral on Fed account access and does not alter who is currently legally eligible for Federal Reserve services or deposit access.
Interest Payments: Prohibits domestic and foreign issuers from offering interest to holders, although it does not address 3rd parties or affiliates.
Licensing: Provides both a state and federal (OCC) licensing path for non-bank issuers, although state issuers must get federal license once over $10B in assets.
Reserve Authentication: Monthly public disclosures of reserve composition; Annual financial audits for issuers with market capitalizations exceeding $50 billion.
Activity Limits: Creates limits on the types of activities a non-bank stablecoin issuer can conduct (ie issue & redeem stablecoins; manage reserves; and custody stablecoins).
Non-Security clarification: Payment stablecoins are explicitly excluded from being classified as securities.
Marketing restrictions: Prohibits the use of “USG”, “United State Government” or “legal tender” as part of materials and naming conventions; allows the use of “USD”.
International Stablecoins: Non-compliant foreign issuers may be barred from U.S. markets unless they comply with U.S. regulations and/or are licensed by an approved similar regime.
Conflict of Interest: Clarified that financial conflict of interest standards apply uniformly to both regular and special government employees, although the referenced statute in the bill carves out the President and Vice President.
Big Tech company issuance: Restricts issuance by large U.S. public or foreign companies not primarily engaged in financial services, unless they meet certain standards (TBD by the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee (SCRC), which is made up of the Treasury Secretary, FDIC Chair, and Fed Chair or Vice Chair) and are unanimously approved by the SCRC.

The CLARITY Act:

The House’s digital assets market structure bill, by a vote of 294-134. This vote total is notable because it received 78 Democratic votes, a larger number than market structure legislation received in last Congress’ FIT21 bill.

Trending: Three Dead in Explosion at L.A. Sheriff’s Training Facility

• The CLARITY ACT establishes the framework to define digital assets and related technology and establishes the regulatory regime for digital asset exchanges and intermediaries.
• With the vote total, there is perceived momentum for market structure legislation going into the Senate, which is working on its own market structure bill.

Key provisions of the CLARITY Act:

• Bank Permissibility: The bill provides clarity for bank permissibility to trade and custody spot digital commodities by defining these activities as “financial in nature.”
• Custody in a Broker-Dealer: The bill prevents a future SAB 121 approach from the SEC. Although SAB 121 has been rescinded by the SEC in recent months, it forced public companies to hold custodied digital assets on balance sheet, which for banks would mean punitive capital treatment and in essence a strong disincentive to custody digital assets.
• Portfolio Margining: The bill includes a directive for the SEC and CFTC to provide for portfolio margining across securities, repo, securities lending / borrowing, futures, options, swaps and digital assets. This is a priority for both the traditional and digital assets markets.
• Capital Netting: The bill also directs the banking agencies to provide for cross-product netting in the risk-based capital and leverage rules, which has been an issue in traditional markets for quite some time and will be important for both traditional and digital assets markets.
• Deference to regulators: Considerable amount of policy development is left to future rulemakings by the SEC and CFTC.
• Intermediary Regulation Focused on Retail: Dealer registration is only required for off-exchange with retail; broker registration is only required for soliciting / accepting retail orders.
• Trading through SEC Broker Dealers, ATS, exchanges: Digital commodities can be traded through Broker-Dealers, ATS or national exchanges, granting SEC significant jurisdiction over the spot crypto markets.
• Digital Commodity Exchange Verticals: Exchanges are vested with SRO authority; no prohibitions on affiliations to traditional exchanges, CCPs or intermediaries; requires exchange to write conflicts of interest rules. Prohibited from having an affiliate that trades on the exchange for its own account.
• Direct Access: No requirements for exchange trading to occur through brokers or dealers.
• Speed to Market: Through provisional and notice registration processes and self-certification by exchanges of products to list, the bill provides an expeditious process to bring new products to market.

The Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act:

By a vote mostly along party lines.

• This stand-alone bill attempts to prevent the Fed from issuing a retail CBDC, although it will be an uphill battle to move forward in the Senate, due to strong Democratic opposition.
• The House activity this week included a series of delays and last-minute internal GOP negotiations to get to yesterday’s floor vote, which were reported publicly, including involvement of President Trump, which ended with an internal GOP agreement to include anti-CBDC language in a future must-pass defense spending bill (the National Defense Authorization Act) (link).

Next steps:

• The GENIUS Act is slated to be signed into law by President Trump on Friday (7/18) at a White House ceremony.
• The CLARITY Act will now move to the Senate for consideration, although, as noted above, the Senate is working on its own market structure legislation. With the momentum from the CLARITY Act, including the relatively strong number of Democrats in support, though, Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-SC)’s goal of a September markup has increased potential, although still an uphill battle to get strong bipartisan support, which is required to get the 60 votes necessary to avoid a filibuster. The Senate Agriculture and Banking committees will work together on drafting legislation.
• The Treasury Department’s long-awaited Digital Assets report, mandated by the WH Executive Order earlier this year, is expected to be released soon. This report will likely push for market structure legislation, as well as touch on additional issues at the banking and regulatory agencies that are needed to meet the President Trump’s stated goal of making the U.S. the “crypto capital of the world.