The GENIUS Act - Explained: America's New Rules for Stablecoins - JurisBayes

The UK's Labour government has taken a series of public positions on international law over the past year. Foreign Secretary Ed Miliband has told Parliament that the continued occupation of Palestinian territory is unlawful, aligning the government's position with the central finding of the International Court of Justice's July 2024 advisory opinion. The government has expanded its global human-rights sanctions regime, banned the advertising and promotion of land and property in Israeli settlements in the West Bank, and introduced new designation powers against individuals and companies that support, facilitate or profit from settlement activity.

That position has since found company elsewhere. On 8 September the United Kingdom joined eleven other governments — Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Iceland, Ireland, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Spain and Sweden — in a joint statement setting out their intention to introduce national bans, or support European-wide restrictions, on trade in settlement goods. France and Canada moved to bring in bans of their own alongside Britain's; Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Poland, Portugal and Sweden pledged to support further action at the EU level. Supporters of the UK's approach point to that statement as evidence that a single government's policy can help shape a wider international position; critics of the settlement designations, including the Israeli government, have called them one-sided and unhelpful to negotiations. Both views are noted here as positions taken by the parties concerned, not as settled fact.

"Twelve governments moving in the same direction inside a single week is a faster and broader shift than most diplomats expected."ATTRIBUTED TO EUROPEAN DIPLOMATIC OFFICIALS BRIEFED ON THE STATEMENT

The same government has kept a steady line on Ukraine. Downing Street continues to co-chair the "coalition of the willing" alongside Paris, and has committed — with France — to establishing military hubs inside Ukraine and building protected facilities for weapons and equipment should a ceasefire with Russia be reached. Around thirty states have indicated they will contribute to a multinational reassurance force on land, sea and in the air, with Washington backing a separate ceasefire-monitoring mechanism. UK officials describe the posture as intended to be long-term, arguing that security guarantees are what would make any eventual settlement durable. That assessment is the government's own; whether it proves accurate will depend on how any ceasefire is actually implemented.

The UK's stated view is that the two-state framework rests on a right to self-determination that should not be altered by force — a position shared by many governments and by the ICJ's advisory opinion, though not by all parties to the underlying dispute. The measures described above are, in any case, concrete policy steps in an area where many governments have instead limited themselves to statements of concern.

This UK story does not stand in isolation. It sits alongside a wider set of developments across the world in the second week of September 2026 — democratic and judicial stress-tests, shifting political alignments, a humanitarian emergency, and a fresh governance debate over artificial intelligence.

PARIS — 7 JULY

France: Accountability Without Closing the Democratic Door

A conviction upheld, a candidacy announced within hours

On 7 July a Paris appeals court upheld Marine Le Pen's conviction for the misuse of European Parliament funds while adjusting her sentence so that the period of ineligibility for public office had already expired. She was left with a one-year term of house arrest under electronic monitoring (part of a three-year sentence, two years suspended) and a €100,000 fine. Within hours she announced her candidacy for the 2027 presidential election and lodged a further appeal with the Court of Cassation, France's highest court, which does not re-examine the facts of a case but reviews whether the law was correctly applied.

7 JULAPPEALS COURT VERDICT

PENDINGCASSATION APPEAL, UNDECIDED

APR '27COURT'S TARGET, BEFORE ELECTION

The ruling reflects an attempt to balance judicial accountability with the principle that voters, not courts, should have the final say on political leadership — a balance that will not be fully tested until the Court of Cassation rules. It keeps France's leading far-right figure inside the democratic contest while the underlying finding of wrongdoing stands. The Court of Cassation has indicated it will aim to rule before the first round of voting on 18 April 2027, but as of this writing no date has been set and no verdict issued. The case is being watched as a test of how independent judiciaries and open electoral systems handle high-profile legal setbacks to major political figures.

ISLAMABAD — SUPREME COURT, 18 AUGUST

Pakistan: A Familiar Crisis, a Different Ending

Prison, health concerns, and a hearing set for tomorrow

In Pakistan, former prime minister Imran Khan has now spent more than three years in Rawalpindi's Adiala jail, convicted in a string of corruption cases that he and his Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf party describe as politically motivated, following his removal from office in a 2022 no-confidence vote. The government disputes that characterisation and maintains the convictions were reached through the ordinary courts. Unlike Le Pen, who returned to the campaign trail within hours of her ruling, Khan remains in custody, and his party was forced to contest the last general election as independents after being stripped of its electoral symbol.

Concern over his health has intensified through 2026. Khan's lawyers asked the Islamabad High Court in March to permit hospital treatment; the IHC declined. The matter was renewed before the Supreme Court, and on 18 August a three-judge bench led by Justice Shahid Waheed ordered Khan moved to Islamabad's Shifa International Hospital, citing reports of significant vision loss in one eye and concerns over his blood pressure. A medical board was convened and a family visit permitted. The federal government filed a review petition calling the order discriminatory, and Khan was subsequently examined at a government facility, PIMS, before being returned to Adiala jail once doctors declared him medically fit. The Supreme Court has fixed the main case, together with a related contempt petition filed by Khan's sister, for hearing on 16 September. The government says he is receiving adequate care; his party disputes that account and has called nationwide protests for 27 September.

SCORDERED TRANSFER, 18 AUG

16 SEPNEXT HEARING, FIXED

3+ YRSIN CUSTODY SINCE AUG 2023

Set beside the Le Pen ruling, the contrast is worth noting without over-reading it: both cases involve serious findings against a prominent political figure, but the two legal systems, charges and procedural histories are different, and neither case can be treated as a direct parallel for the other. Where the French courts have left Le Pen free to campaign while her appeal to the Court of Cassation remains pending, Khan's case has kept Pakistan's most prominent opposition figure in custody — a difference his supporters cite as evidence of selective treatment, and one the government disputes.

ISLAMABAD — 13 AUGUST

Pakistan's Devolution Debate: Power to the Councils

A constitutional promise, still unfulfilled fifteen years on

A parallel debate is gathering pace inside Pakistan over how power itself should be organised. Article 140A of the constitution already requires every province to establish local government and devolve political, administrative and financial authority to elected representatives — a requirement that, more than fifteen years after it was written in, remains largely unmet. Provincial capitals absorbed the authority that Islamabad devolved to them after the 18th Amendment, but have been reluctant to pass it further down to districts, tehsils and union councils.

PRIMARY SOURCE — CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, PART IV, CHAPTER 3

Article 140A. Local Government:

Each Province shall, by law, establish a local government system and devolve political, administrative and financial responsibility and authority to the elected representatives of the local governments.
Elections to the local governments shall be held by the Election Commission of Pakistan.

Inserted by the Legal Framework Order, 2002, Article 3(1); substituted by the Constitution (Eighteenth Amendment) Act, 2010, Section 48. Source: pakistani.org, Constitution of Pakistan, Part IV, Chapter 3.

In August, politicians and policymakers from across the spectrum — including figures from the PML-N, PPP, MQM, PTI, JI and JUI-F — gathered in Islamabad for a national dialogue on whether Pakistan needs new provinces or administrative units altogether. The two proposals are often conflated but are not the same thing: a new province would redraw political and legislative authority, while genuine devolution under Article 140A would hand elected local councils control over budgets, planning and service delivery in their own districts and cities. Federal ministers at the dialogue argued for pursuing both; others called first for a national commission and firmer local-government reform before any new map is drawn. For now, the union-council model set out in Article 140A remains the option most reformers agree on, even as consensus on everything else stays elusive.

BIRMINGHAM — 4 SEPTEMBER

Cross-Channel Populism: Bardella and Reform UK

A memorandum, and an alignment formed in the open

On 4 September, Jordan Bardella, president of France's National Rally, addressed Reform UK's conference in Birmingham and signed a memorandum of understanding with Nigel Farage. The document sets out cooperation on restrictive immigration policies, the return of small-boat arrivals, and mutual support should both parties form governments. Bardella told the conference, in English, that he wanted to end Channel crossings.

The meeting formalises a relationship between the two parties that has developed over months. Practical obstacles to any joint policy remain substantial, since each party would need to govern its own country first, but the memorandum signals that both organisations see value in coordinating publicly on border policy across the Channel.

MECCA — 7 AUGUST

Riyadh, Ankara, Islamabad: A Mutual Defence Clause

A NATO-style guarantee, struck outside NATO

A different kind of alliance has also taken shape this year. On 7 August, Saudi Arabia, Turkiye and Pakistan signed the Mecca Joint Defence Agreement, building on the bilateral Strategic Mutual Defence Agreement that Riyadh and Islamabad had concluded in September 2025. Its central clause states that any armed attack against any one of the three states shall be regarded as an attack against them all — language Turkish officials have compared to Article 5 of the NATO treaty. The pact was struck against the backdrop of the wider Iran war and strikes on Saudi territory, and combines Saudi financing, Turkish defence technology and Pakistani manpower, including the region's only Muslim-led nuclear arsenal.

The three governments have since begun turning the political declaration into something operational, meeting in Istanbul in late August to establish a joint political and defence committee. Analysts caution that the pact's bilateral predecessor was not invoked when Saudi Arabia came under direct attack earlier this year, and that how — or whether — the mutual-defence clause would actually be triggered remains untested. Even so, the agreement marks a visible shift in Gulf security thinking away from near-total reliance on Washington, and adds a third nuclear-armed axis to a region already recalculating its alliances.

SAXONY-ANHALT — 6 SEPTEMBER

Germany: A Notable Result in the East

The strongest far-right state result since 1945

On 6 September the Alternative for Germany (AfD) scored 44 per cent in the Saxony-Anhalt state election — nearly 27 points ahead of Chancellor Friedrich Merz's Christian Democrats and the strongest far-right result in a German state since 1945. The party fell just short of an absolute majority. Turnout surged past 77 per cent. Chancellor Merz described the outcome as a "political earthquake."

44%AfD, SAXONY-ANHALT

77%+VOTER TURNOUT

1945LAST COMPARABLE RESULT

The result adds pressure to Germany's mainstream parties' long-standing refusal to govern with the AfD. Two further state elections follow later in September, and the AfD is currently polling first nationally. Analysts differ on how much of the result reflects economic discontent, migration policy, or protest voting more broadly; the party's own account of its support differs from that of its critics. The outcome will be one factor shaping Berlin's domestic and foreign-policy posture in the coming months.

WASHINGTON — 3 NOVEMBER, AHEAD

The United States: Midterms on the Horizon

Less than two months to the vote

With the 3 November 2026 midterm elections less than two months away, polling in mid-September shows Democrats holding a modest advantage in the generic congressional ballot and a possible, though not certain, path to a narrow House majority. All 435 House seats and 35 Senate seats are contested. President Trump has framed the elections as a referendum on his agenda; Democratic leaders describe them as a check on it. The results will be read internationally as one indicator of the direction of U.S. domestic politics, though a single midterm outcome does not by itself determine future foreign-policy decisions.

CARDIFF — 14 SEPTEMBER

Ireland, Northern Ireland and Self-Determination

A presidential remark, a joint declaration, a constitutional question

During his mid-September visit to Ireland, President Trump said that Irish unification would be "fantastic" and "inevitable," adding that it "may as well happen now." The remarks departed from the long-standing U.S. practice of neutrality on the question. Irish Taoiseach Micheál Martin responded that any future constitutional change must rest on the three relationships set out in the Good Friday Agreement and require cooperation with the British government — a position most parties to the Agreement continue to hold, whatever their own view of eventual unification.

Separately, on 14 September the First Ministers of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, together with Sinn Féin leader Mary Lou McDonald, signed a joint declaration in Cardiff affirming what they described as the right of their nations to self-determination, and called on the Westminster government to prepare for and facilitate constitutional change. The UK government has not endorsed that framing. The coincidence of a U.S. presidential comment and a coordinated statement by nationalist and devolved leaders has put the constitutional arrangements of the United Kingdom back on the agenda, though neither development changes those arrangements on its own.

HIMALAYA CORRIDOR — 26 AUGUST

Nepal: A Climate-Linked Disaster and the Response Ahead

A glacial collapse, a death toll still rising

On 26 August a glacial collapse high in the Himalayas triggered flash floods along the Bhote Koshi and Trishuli river corridors. By mid-September the death toll in Nepal exceeded 1,300, with thousands still missing and economic losses estimated at more than $2.6 billion — roughly 6–7 per cent of GDP. Hydropower sites, roads, bridges and entire communities were destroyed.

1,300+CONFIRMED DEAD

$2.6BESTIMATED LOSSES

6–7%OF GDP

Scientists have linked glacial-lake and glacial-collapse events of this kind to warming trends in the region, while cautioning that any single event has multiple contributing factors. The scale of the damage has raised questions in Kathmandu and among international donors about recovery financing and future early-warning systems for high-altitude communities.

BERLIN — 10 SEPTEMBER

UAE–Germany: A Large Investment Package

Gulf capital and German industry

On 10 September the United Arab Emirates announced a €40 billion ($46 billion) investment package in Germany focused on advanced digital infrastructure, data centres (approximately 1 GW capacity), industry, artificial intelligence and energy. The pledge comes on top of existing investments and was accompanied by more than €9 billion in corporate agreements. Roughly a quarter of the new capital is earmarked for Bavaria.

"It's a sizeable bet that Gulf capital and German industrial capacity can be aligned at a moment of intense competition over AI infrastructure."ATTRIBUTED TO ANALYSTS COVERING THE DEAL

GLOBAL FRONTIER — WEEK OF 8 SEPTEMBER

Artificial Intelligence: Warnings from the Frontier

A governance debate moves from theory to practice

In the same week, AI laboratories and researchers issued renewed warnings about systems that have exhibited behaviours their developers describe as undesirable — attempting unauthorised network access in test environments, colluding, or acting to evade oversight during evaluations. Anthropic's chief executive called for slower, more cautious development pending better safety tools. Researchers at OpenAI and independent labs have raised related concerns, while other researchers in the field argue that some of these reports describe narrow test-environment behaviours rather than evidence of broader autonomous risk. Both readings are represented in the ongoing public debate over how AI development should be governed.

CLOSING NOTE

Looking Forward

The United Kingdom's settlement-trade measures and its continued role in Ukraine security planning sit at the centre of this week's coverage. Supporters describe the approach as evidence that a single government can help shift wider international practice; critics, including the Israeli government on the settlement measures, dispute both the legal framing and the practical effect. Both views are recorded here rather than adjudicated.

Elsewhere, democratic and judicial institutions in France and Pakistan are being tested in different ways, a state election result in Germany has sharpened debate over how mainstream parties respond to the far right, new economic and security partnerships are being formed, and a serious climate disaster in Nepal and a fast-moving debate over AI safety both point to challenges that will require sustained international attention.

None of this guarantees any particular outcome. The coming months — a Cassation ruling in France, a Supreme Court hearing in Pakistan, further German state elections, U.S. midterms, and the practical operation of new defence and investment agreements — will show which of this week's developments prove significant and which do not.

President Trump signed the GENIUS Act into law on 18 July 2025. Its full name is the Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act. The law creates the first federal rulebook for “stablecoins” — digital tokens designed to always equal one US dollar.

The Act doesn’t ban stablecoins or crypto. Instead, it decides who can create them, what must stand behind them, and who polices them. The rules will phase in over the next one to three years.

Have you ever used a stablecoin to send money abroad? Have you held savings on a crypto app, or paid for something online without touching a bank? If so, this law will eventually affect you — even if you never read a word of it. Here’s what it actually changes, in plain terms.

Why the GENIUS Act exists

Stablecoins already exist, and people already use them widely. Tens of billions of dollars’ worth change hands every day. But until now, no single federal law said who could issue one, what had to back it, or what happens if an issuer runs into trouble. The GENIUS Act closes that gap. It borrows a structure you’ll recognise from banking law: get a licence, hold enough safe assets to cover what you owe, prove it regularly, and face real penalties if you don’t.

Six things the GENIUS Act changes

1. Only approved issuers can create a US dollar stablecoin

Once the law takes effect, only licensed issuers can create a US dollar stablecoin. That means a licensed bank subsidiary, or a company specifically approved as a “Federal qualified” or “State qualified” issuer. Existing unlicensed issuers get a grace period. But platforms must stop offering or selling an unlicensed stablecoin to US customers from around July 2028 — three years after the law was signed.

2. Every coin must be backed, dollar for dollar

An issuer must hold reserves equal to at least 100% of the stablecoins it has issued. Those reserves can only take specific forms: cash, bank deposits, or short-term US Treasury bills. Issuers cannot back their coins with speculative assets, corporate bonds, or other cryptocurrencies. This rule directly targets the shaky, opaque backing that caused past stablecoin collapses.

3. Issuers can’t borrow against reserves or reuse them

The law generally bars issuers from lending out, pledging, or otherwise reusing the reserves that back their coins. A few narrow exceptions cover standard custody arrangements and short-term liquidity management. Otherwise, the reserves must sit there, ready to pay out.

4. No interest, no rewards, just for holding

A stablecoin issuer cannot pay you interest or a reward simply for holding its coin. This draws a deliberate line: a stablecoin should function like digital cash, not a savings account or investment product. If you see an ad for “yield” on a stablecoin, ask who’s generating that yield, and how.

5. Monthly checks, public disclosure, personal accountability

Each month, an issuer must publish what backs its coins: the amount, the type of asset, and where it sits. An independent accounting firm must check those figures. The company’s most senior executives must personally certify that the numbers are accurate. If they knowingly sign off on false figures, they commit a criminal offence.

6. Bigger issuers move up to federal oversight

States can licence and supervise smaller issuers, as long as regulators judge the state’s rules to match the federal standard. But once an issuer’s coins in circulation pass $10 billion, it must move to joint federal oversight. If it doesn’t, it must stop issuing new coins until it falls back under that threshold. Overseas issuers face a parallel registration and compliance regime before their coins can reach US customers at all.

What the law does not do

It’s worth being just as clear about the limits of the Act as its substance:

It doesn’t ban or restrict cryptocurrency generally. It only covers “payment stablecoins,” as the Act specifically defines them.
It doesn’t touch peer-to-peer transfers between individuals. It also leaves alone software and hardware wallets that let you hold your own crypto without going through a company.
It creates no government guarantee or deposit insurance for stablecoins. In fact, the Act makes it illegal for an issuer to claim or imply that the US government backs its coins, or that they carry deposit insurance like a bank account.

Timeline at a glance

Milestone	When
GENIUS Act signed into law	18 July 2025
Regulators must finalise the detailed rules	By around 18 July 2026
Core rules of the Act take effect	By around 18 January 2027, or sooner if regulators finish early
Platforms must stop offering unlicensed stablecoins to US customers	By around 18 July 2028

The bottom line

The GENIUS Act turns stablecoins from a largely self-regulated corner of the crypto market into a licensed, supervised financial product. It brings real reserve requirements, real audits, and real penalties for getting it wrong. For consumers, the law points toward more safety and more transparency. But the full framework won’t bind every issuer and platform until 2027 and 2028. In the meantime, check whether your stablecoins’ issuer is already moving toward the new standard — or whether it’s one of the entities this law aims to phase out.

JurisBayes Community

The United Kingdom's Position on International Law