Referred to the House Committee on Financial Services.
The Keep Your Coins Act of 2025 prohibits heads of Federal agencies from prohibiting, restricting, or impairing a covered user's ability to use convertible virtual currency to purchase goods or services for personal use. It also prevents agencies from restricting a person's ability to self-custody digital assets using a self-hosted wallet.
Progressives emphasize AML, sanctions, and consumer-protection risks
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive policy objective and supplies basic definitional language, but it contains minimal implementation detail, no enforcement or remedies, limited integration with existing law, no fiscal acknowledgement, and no provision for exceptions or oversight.
The Keep Your Coins Act of 2025 prohibits heads of Federal agencies from prohibiting, restricting, or impairing a covered user's ability to use convertible virtual currency to purchase goods or services for personal use.
It also prevents agencies from restricting a person's ability to self-custody digital assets using a self-hosted wallet.
The bill defines "convertible virtual currency," "covered user," and "self-hosted wallet." The restriction applies to agency actions but does not itself create new criminal or civil penalties.
Narrow but politically sensitive deregulatory measure; plausible House traction but significant Senate and regulator resistance reduces overall prospects.
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive policy objective and supplies basic definitional language, but it contains minimal implementation detail, no enforcement or remedies, limited integration with existing law, no fiscal acknowledgement, and no provision for exceptions or oversight.
Progressives emphasize AML, sanctions, and consumer-protection risks
These are examples from the analysis, not a ranked list of the most-affected groups.
Progressives emphasize AML, sanctions, and consumer-protection risks
Likely views the bill skeptically because it removes an agency's ability to restrict certain crypto uses, potentially limiting tools used for anti-money laundering and consumer protection.
Support for self-custody and financial inclusion is acknowledged, but risks to enforcement, tax collection, and vulnerable consumers drive opposition.
Would seek carve-outs for AML, sanctions, and consumer safeguards.
A pragmatic view: the bill protects user choice and self-custody but appears to strip agencies of authorities useful for AML, sanctions, and financial stability.
Would weigh benefits to innovation and inclusion against potential enforcement gaps and systemic risks.
Likely to prefer amendments preserving core enforcement tools and clearer statutory boundaries.
Likely strongly supportive because the bill limits federal agency power and protects private property rights and self-custody of assets.
Seen as a check on regulatory overreach and a promoter of financial liberty, innovation, and market competition.
May argue minimal lawful-use restrictions are necessary; generally opposes additional federal constraints.
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Reached or meaningfully advanced
Still ahead
Still ahead
Still ahead
Narrow but politically sensitive deregulatory measure; plausible House traction but significant Senate and regulator resistance reduces overall prospects.
The bill has not accumulated any surfaced votes yet.
Progressives emphasize AML, sanctions, and consumer-protection risks
Narrow but politically sensitive deregulatory measure; plausible House traction but significant Senate and regulator resistance reduces ove…
Relative to its intended legislative type, this bill clearly states a narrow substantive policy objective and supplies basic definitional language, but it contains minimal implementation detail, no enforcement or remedi…
Go beyond the headline summary with full stakeholder mapping, legislative design analysis, passage barriers, and lens-by-lens tradeoff breakdowns.