GENIUS Act: no foreign stablecoin issuer has a US route yet

A stablecoin licence from Hong Kong, Singapore, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) or the European Union does not give an issuer access to US users. Under the GENIUS Act, a foreign issuer can serve the US market only if the US Department of the Treasury (Treasury) first finds its home regime "comparable". We found no public Treasury finding of comparability for any jurisdiction. The proposed rules do not yet describe how one would be made, according to Freshfields. Where an issuer licenses is therefore a decision about US access, and most issuers are making it without knowing the answer.

A caveat on sourcing. The Federal Register page for Treasury's proposal redirected automated requests, so we confirmed only its title, citation, date and abstract from the Federal Register's data feed. The description of the proposal below rests on law-firm summaries, checked against the statute as enacted. Anyone relying on a detail should confirm it against the notice.

What the statute requires of a foreign issuer

The Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins Act (GENIUS Act) became Public Law 119-27 on 18 July 2025. Section 3(a) makes it unlawful for anyone other than a permitted payment stablecoin issuer to issue a payment stablecoin in the United States. Section 2(12) defines a foreign payment stablecoin issuer as one organised under the laws of, or domiciled in, a foreign country, and which is not a permitted issuer.

Section 18 gives foreign issuers a route out of that prohibition. Section 18(a) disapplies the Section 3 prohibitions if all four conditions below are met, according to Sullivan & Cromwell's summary:

• The issuer is regulated and supervised by a foreign payment stablecoin regulator whose regime Treasury has found comparable.
• It is registered with the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC).
• It holds reserves in a US financial institution.
• Its home country is not under comprehensive US sanctions and is not designated a primary money laundering concern.

Section 18(b)(1) says Treasury may make that finding only on a recommendation from each other member of the Stablecoin Certification Review Committee. Treasury must also publish a justification in the Federal Register. Section 18(b)(3) requires a decision not later than 210 days after receipt of a substantially complete determination request. Section 18(d)(1) separately lets Treasury create reciprocal arrangements or bilateral agreements with comparable jurisdictions.

The licence in the issuer's home country is therefore the first condition, not the last. A licensed Hong Kong issuer has met its own regulator's test. It has not met Treasury's.

The timetable runs ahead of the recognition process

Section 20 sets the Act's effective date at the earlier of 18 months after enactment or 120 days after the primary federal regulators issue final implementing rules. Treasury issued its notice of proposed rulemaking on 17 August 2026 and published it in the Federal Register on 18 August 2026 (91 FR 53368), with comments due 19 October 2026. It expects the effective date to be 18 January 2027, according to Sullivan & Cromwell's summary.

The statute then layers two prohibitions on digital asset service providers (DASPs), the exchanges and platforms that distribute coins. Under Treasury's proposal, from the effective date a DASP may not offer or sell a foreign issuer's stablecoin in the US unless the issuer has the technical capability to comply, and will comply, with lawful orders and any reciprocal arrangement. Under Section 3(b)(1), from 18 July 2028, three years after enactment, a DASP may not offer or sell any payment stablecoin to a person in the US unless a permitted issuer or a qualifying foreign issuer issued it.

Freshfields' note on the proposal observes the gap this creates. The foreign-issuer restriction starts first, but the proposal does not yet set out how Section 18(a) eligibility would be determined. The same note says a DASP may rely on an issuer's representation of compliance if it carries out reasonable due diligence. It may not rely on one it knows or should know is false.

The OCC's side is more developed. It issued its proposal on 25 February 2026 and published it on 2 March 2026 (91 FR 10202), with comments due 1 May 2026, according to Sullivan & Cromwell's March note. A foreign issuer would have to apply to register, showing that Treasury has found its home regime comparable. Unless the OCC rejects it in writing, the registration would be approved on the 30th day after receipt. That speed is conditional on a Treasury finding that does not yet exist.

The 210-day clock

The statute counts 210 days from receipt of a substantially complete request. The sources we read do not say who files it or what makes it complete. Suppose a request were received on 18 January 2027, the expected effective date. Counting 210 days gives 16 August 2027. If it were received a month later, the deadline would fall in mid-September 2027. This is our arithmetic from the statute's period, not a published Treasury schedule, and Treasury could decide sooner. On this assumption, a foreign issuer would wait up to seven months after commencement for a decision.

What Hong Kong, Singapore and the others have so far

The Hong Kong Monetary Authority (HKMA) announced on 10 April 2026 that it had granted stablecoin issuer licences under the Stablecoins Ordinance to two entities, Anchorpoint Financial Limited and The Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation Limited. Both licences took effect that day, and the HKMA said the licensees planned to launch business in the coming few months. The HKMA release does not give the number of applicants. Licensing by the HKMA says nothing about whether Treasury would regard Hong Kong's regime as comparable.

Singapore is moving the other way, towards recognising foreign coins. The Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS) published a consultation on 1 September 2026, closing 16 October 2026, on amending the Payment Services Act 2019 to implement its stablecoin regulatory framework. MAS proposes to recognise "a limited number of foreign-issued stablecoins", which would have to be regulated under a comparable overseas framework, for cross-border wholesale use. The symmetry matters. Singapore proposes a comparability test of its own, and the US applies one to Singaporean issuers.

We have read no Treasury statement on the UAE or EU regimes, so we make no claim about how they would fare. Treasury's advance notice of proposed rulemaking, issued on 18 September 2025 with comments due 20 October 2025, asked commenters to identify comparable foreign regimes and the factors that would disqualify a jurisdiction. That request for views is the last public step specific to comparability that we found.

A worked example: what an issuer can and cannot plan around

Take a hypothetical issuer, licensed in one of the four jurisdictions, with $2 billion of coins outstanding. Assume $300 million, 15 per cent, is held by users in the US. Section 18(a) requires reserves in a US financial institution, and the OCC proposal, per Sullivan & Cromwell, requires reserves in the US sufficient to meet US customers' liquidity demands unless a reciprocal arrangement applies. Neither the statute nor the summaries we read fix a percentage, so the $300 million figure is only a sizing assumption. The practical effect is that part of the reserve sits under US custody, while the remainder sits where the home regulator requires.

Now add the timing. From 18 January 2027 the issuer's coins cannot be offered by a US-facing DASP without the lawful-order commitment. From 18 July 2028 a DASP cannot sell them to US persons unless the issuer qualifies under Section 18. If recognition of its home regime has not arrived by then, the $300 million US-held balance has nowhere compliant to go. Under Freshfields' summary, the proposal's safe harbour would require the issuer to reasonably believe all recipients are abroad, maintain controls to prevent US issuance, and not target US persons with advertising or solicitation. It is an exit from the US market, not a way to stay in it.

What this changes for the licensing decision

Three readings follow, and they are ours rather than settled law.

First, a licence should be chosen with the comparability test in view. Treasury's criteria are not final, but the statute's text points to the features a regime would need to resemble. Treasury must find the regime comparable to the one applied to US permitted issuers, according to Sullivan & Cromwell's reading of Section 18(a). An issuer that wants US users should read its home rules against that standard now, not after recognition is decided.

Second, no jurisdiction can be treated as a safe choice yet. A first-mover licence, such as Hong Kong's, is not a head start in Treasury's process. Sequencing runs through the Review Committee, which must recommend any finding, so timing is outside any one regulator's control.

Third, a stablecoin issuer that does not need US users can reasonably ignore all of this, provided it keeps clear of US marketing. The cost lands on issuers whose business case includes US distribution, and they should price in a wait that, on the 210-day period alone, could run into mid-2027 or later.

Treasury's final rule may change any of this. The comment period closed on 19 October 2026, and we found no final text.