The Anti-Crypto Coalition: How Banks, Politicians, and Academics Coordinate to Slow Down Crypto

On February 26, 2026, two former Biden administration economists published an op-ed in the New York Times attacking the GENIUS Act--the stablecoin bill that passed the Senate 66-32 with bipartisan support. Their argument: stablecoins have "zero legitimate use cases," will trigger taxpayer bailouts, and exist solely to serve "crypto bros, oligarchs, and drug kingpins."

The bylines identified them as Stanford fellows. What the bylines didn't mention: their arguments were identical--sometimes word-for-word--to the lobbying positions of JPMorgan Chase, the Bank Policy Institute, and the American Bankers Association.

This isn't a coincidence. It's a coalition.

The $280 Billion Question

Why are America's largest banks spending millions to kill stablecoin legislation?

The math is simple. Stablecoins now exceed $225 billion in circulation. Settlement volume hit $27.6 trillion in 2024--rivaling Visa. Standard Chartered projects the market could reach $2 trillion by 2028.

That money has to come from somewhere. And "somewhere" is bank deposits.

JPMorgan's CFO warned publicly that yield-bearing stablecoins "threaten the banking system's deposit base." The Bank Policy Institute sent a letter to Congress demanding amendments to the GENIUS Act that would prohibit stablecoins from offering interest. The American Bankers Association mobilized 3,200 member banks to sign a letter urging Congress to "close stablecoin loopholes."

The threat is existential. If stablecoins can offer 4-5% yields while banks offer 0.5%, deposits migrate. And deposits are the raw material of banking--the cheap funding that makes the entire business model work.

So the banks are fighting back. Not with better products. With lobbyists, politicians, academics, and op-eds.

Mapping the Coalition

The resistance to crypto isn't spontaneous outrage. It's an organized network with clear nodes and connections.

The Money: Megabanks

JPMorgan Chase leads the coalition. Jamie Dimon has called Bitcoin a "fraud" and "a pet rock," while simultaneously filing patents for blockchain settlement systems. The contradiction tells you everything: the technology is valuable, but only if banks control it.

Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs round out the group. Together, they represent over $10 trillion in assets and spend tens of millions annually on lobbying.

The Lobbyists: Trade Groups

The Bank Policy Institute is the tip of the spear--a lobbying organization led by the largest banks, explicitly tasked with shaping financial regulation. Their August 2025 letter on the GENIUS Act demanded provisions that would effectively neuter stablecoin competition.

The American Bankers Association adds mass. When 3,200 banks sign a letter, congressional offices notice. The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) provides cover from the "small banks" angle, even though the policy positions serve megabank interests.

The Votes: Politicians

Senator Elizabeth Warren has positioned herself as the de facto leader of what she calls the "anti-crypto army." Her DAAMLA bill would impose bank-like regulations on crypto that the industry argues would be impossible to comply with. When nine Democratic senators withdrew support from the GENIUS Act in May 2025, Warren's office was coordinating the retreat.

The list of senators who flipped: Raphael Warnock (GA), Catherine Cortez Masto (NV), Ben Ray Luján (NM), John Hickenlooper (CO), Adam Schiff (CA), and others. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer voted against the procedural motion. Representative Maxine Waters, former chair of the House Financial Services Committee, has been negotiating restrictions from the House side.

The Intellectual Cover: Think Tanks and Academics

This is where the coalition gets interesting.

Better Markets, led by CEO Dennis Kelleher, provides the most aggressive messaging. Kelleher has called Bitcoin "worthless" and described the crypto industry as "flagrantly lawless." Better Markets frequently testifies before Congress and provides talking points to sympathetic legislators.

Americans for Financial Reform assembled a coalition of over 200 advocacy groups to oppose crypto legislation. Public Citizen celebrated when Democrats blocked the GENIUS Act.

And then there are the individual academics. Nobel laureate Paul Krugman has written repeatedly that "crypto is for criming"--a phrase that became a talking point across the coalition. NYU professor Nouriel Roubini, "Dr. Doom," predicts a "crypto apocalypse" with regularity. Stephen Diehl, a software engineer turned activist, argues that crypto should be treated like "asbestos"--contained and eliminated.

The Enforcers: Regulators

Gary Gensler's SEC, before his departure in 2025, pursued what critics called "regulation by enforcement"--suing Coinbase, Kraken, Ripple, and others while refusing to provide clear rules. The legal costs to the crypto industry exceeded $400 million. The FDIC has faced allegations of "Choke Point 2.0"--informal pressure on banks to sever relationships with crypto companies. The Federal Reserve has denied master accounts to crypto-focused institutions.

The Alignment Problem

Here's what the NYT op-ed didn't disclose:

Jared Bernstein, the former CEA Chair, is now a "Distinguished Policy Fellow" at Stanford's SIEPR. His co-author Ryan Cummings served in the same CEA office and is now Chief of Staff at SIEPR. They presented themselves as neutral academics offering expert analysis.

But their arguments--stablecoins will trigger bailouts, crypto has "zero legitimate use cases," the GENIUS Act serves only criminals--are not original analysis. They're the Bank Policy Institute's lobbying position, restated in academic language.

This is how the coalition works. Banks fund trade groups. Trade groups lobby politicians. Think tanks provide "independent" validation. Academics write op-eds. Regulators enforce. And at every step, the same talking points circulate--laundered through institutional credibility until they sound like consensus rather than advocacy.

We're not alleging corruption. We're observing alignment. Whether that alignment emerges from shared worldview, overlapping social networks, or something more direct is a question the coalition never has to answer--because no one asks.

Why They're Fighting So Hard

The intensity of the opposition tells you something about the stakes.

Banks don't mobilize 3,200 institutions to fight a technology that doesn't threaten them. Former Treasury officials don't write urgent op-eds about irrelevant asset classes. Nobel laureates don't repeatedly attack "pet rocks."

The threat is structural. Stablecoins, at scale, disintermediate banks from their core function: holding deposits and earning the spread. If users can hold USDC earning 4.5% instead of a checking account earning 0.4%, they will. And once deposits migrate, bank balance sheets shrink. Lending capacity contracts. The entire model built on cheap deposit funding comes under pressure.

This is why the Bank Policy Institute's letter focused specifically on prohibiting yield-bearing stablecoins. Not banning stablecoins--restricting the feature that makes them competitive with bank deposits.

It's also why the arguments pivot toward systemic risk and taxpayer bailouts. If the debate is about competition, banks lose. If the debate is about safety, banks have a century of regulatory capture working in their favor.

The Other Side of the Lobbying Story

The Bernstein-Cummings op-ed attacked crypto's political spending extensively. They're not wrong that the industry spent heavily in 2024--$100+ million on elections according to OpenSecrets.

What they didn't mention: banks spend heavily too. The American Bankers Association alone spends over $10 million annually on lobbying. JPMorgan, Bank of America, Citigroup, Wells Fargo, and Goldman Sachs collectively spend tens of millions more. The Bank Policy Institute exists solely to influence policy.

The crypto industry's political spending is new and therefore newsworthy. The banking industry's political spending is old and therefore invisible. Both are attempting to shape regulation in their favor. Only one is being framed as corruption.

The Uncomfortable Middle Ground

Let's be fair to the critics.

Crypto does have a money laundering problem. The technology has enabled fraud. FTX did collapse spectacularly. Consumer protections are genuinely lacking. Some regulation is both inevitable and appropriate.

The question isn't whether crypto should be regulated. It's how--and by whom.

The coalition pushing hardest against crypto isn't a consumer protection movement. It's an incumbent protection movement. Banks aren't fighting stablecoins because they're worried about consumers losing money. They're fighting stablecoins because they're worried about losing deposits.

When the Bank Policy Institute demands that stablecoins be prohibited from offering yield, they're not protecting consumers--they're protecting their members' profit margins. When former Treasury officials argue that stablecoins have "zero legitimate use cases," they're ignoring the $27.6 trillion in settlement volume that suggests otherwise.

The appropriate response to this coalition isn't to dismiss all criticism. It's to ask: who benefits from this particular policy position? And when the answer is "America's largest banks," to apply appropriate skepticism.

The Punchline

The resistance to crypto isn't principled skepticism. It's coordinated defense of a $280 billion deposit base.

Banks. Trade groups. Politicians. Think tanks. Academics. Regulators. All making the same arguments, using the same talking points, pushing toward the same outcome: keeping stablecoins from competing with bank deposits.

The February 26 op-ed in the New York Times wasn't independent analysis. It was the latest salvo in a lobbying campaign that spans Wall Street, K Street, Capitol Hill, and academia. The authors may genuinely believe what they wrote. But their beliefs happen to align perfectly with the financial interests of America's largest banks.

That's not a coincidence. It's a coalition.

And when a coalition this powerful, this well-funded, and this well-connected fights this hard against a technology--it usually means the technology is working.

The Complete Anti-Crypto Coalition

Banks and Financial Institutions

Trade Groups and Lobbyists

Politicians

Think Tanks and Advocacy Groups

Academics and Intellectuals

Regulators

Media

Activists and Crypto Skeptic Network