Crypto market structure is not “officially rejected” by the White House right now. The closer reading is narrower. The White House failed to broker a compromise, then signaled red lines on targeted ethics language.
What happened at the White House on Feb. 3
Crypto market structure legislation has been stuck in a bank-versus-crypto standoff. On February 3, 2026, the White House hosted a closed-door meeting to try to break that stalemate, according to Reuters. The session ended without agreement. Reuters reported the White House said it would keep “engaging in productive conversations” tied to President Donald Trump’s tech agenda. (Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/white-house-meeting-fails-resolve-us-crypto-legislation-stalemate-2026-02-03/)
The meeting was organized through the White House’s crypto council, Reuters said. It brought together banking and crypto trade groups. Participants described the talks as constructive. Still, no compromise emerged on the core dispute. (Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/white-house-meeting-fails-resolve-us-crypto-legislation-stalemate-2026-02-03/)
This matters because crypto market structure legislation often moves only when both blocs accept shared terms. Without that, Senate action slips. Reuters said a Senate vote had been postponed due to the lack of consensus. (Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/white-house-meeting-fails-resolve-us-crypto-legislation-stalemate-2026-02-03/)
The main snag: stablecoin “interest” and rewards
Crypto market structure talks are bogged down by a single high-impact topic: stablecoin rewards. Reuters described a clash over whether stablecoin holders can receive interest-like payments or incentives.
Banks want a ban on interest and rewards on stablecoins. Their argument is about deposit flight risk. If stablecoins offer yield, customers may move money out of banks. Crypto firms counter that rewards are key to competition and user adoption. (Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/white-house-meeting-fails-resolve-us-crypto-legislation-stalemate-2026-02-03/)
This divide is structural. It blends consumer protection, payments competition, and bank funding stability. It is also a messaging fight. Each side frames the other as trying to “rig” crypto market structure rules.
What the White House did reject on Feb. 4
Crypto market structure did face a pointed rejection, but it was not a wholesale rejection of the bill. On February 4, 2026, Patrick Witt, described as a senior Trump digital-assets adviser and executive director of the President’s Council for Advisors for Digital Assets, said the White House has “red lines.” He said the administration would not accept ethics or anti-corruption provisions that “target” the president or his family members.
Securities Docket reported Witt’s remarks from an interview at the Ondo Summit in New York. It quoted Witt calling some earlier ethics proposals “completely outrageous.” It also quoted him saying, “We’re not going to allow the targeting of the president individually or his family members.” (Securities Docket: https://www.securitiesdocket.com/2026/02/04/trumps-white-house-wont-tolerate-attacks-on-the-president-in-crypto-bill-adviser-says/)
CoinDesk separately reported the same thrust of Witt’s position. It framed the comments as a boundary on what the White House will accept in crypto market structure legislation. (CoinDesk: https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2026/02/03/trump-adviser-says-white-house-won-t-allow-crypto-bill-to-attack-president-on-ethics)
Why “rejected market structure” is misleading
Crypto market structure is still a stated policy goal in official messaging. The White House’s 2025 fact sheet on digital-asset policy argued for a “fit-for-purpose market structure framework” to support innovation while protecting consumers. (White House: https://www.whitehouse.gov/fact-sheets/2025/07/fact-sheet-the-presidents-working-group-on-digital-asset-markets-releases-recommendations-to-strengthen-american-leadership-in-digital-financial-technology/)
That context makes the current posture clearer. The White House appears to be:
Trying to close the stablecoin rewards gap.
Rejecting targeted ethics provisions that name or single out Trump-family interests.
Keeping the broader crypto market structure effort alive.
Reuters’ reporting supports “no breakthrough,” not “bill killed.” It also supports continued engagement, not an official end to negotiations. (Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/white-house-meeting-fails-resolve-us-crypto-legislation-stalemate-2026-02-03/)
Why this matters for markets and politics
Crypto market structure headlines move markets because they reset regulatory probability. A deal can lower perceived enforcement risk and unlock product roadmaps. A breakdown can do the opposite.
The stablecoin rewards fight is also a direct banking-competition question. If rewards survive, crypto firms can market stablecoins like yield products. If rewards are banned, banks may see less deposit pressure. That outcome changes who wins payments share.
The ethics red-line debate adds a second axis of risk. It can harden partisan divides. It can also delay the bill even if the policy text is close. Crypto market structure becomes a proxy for broader Washington fights.
What to watch next
Senate and White House follow-ups
Reuters said more White House meetings were expected. Watch for a revised stablecoin rewards compromise, or a clearer split between issuer rules and exchange rules. (Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/white-house-meeting-fails-resolve-us-crypto-legislation-stalemate-2026-02-03/)
The ethics language rewrite
If lawmakers want progress, they may shift from Trump-specific language to general conflict rules. That could reduce the White House objection while preserving oversight goals.
Public statements on “market structure” support
Any fresh White House language will matter. If officials repeat “fit-for-purpose” crypto market structure support, it weakens claims of a blanket rejection.