You’re stationed overseas serving your country, and suddenly your access to financial services back home gets… complicated. That’s the gap the Defense Credit Union Council (DCUC) is trying to close before Congress passes the CLARITY Act in its current form.
The Core Problem: Geography Shouldn’t Equal Penalty
In a letter to Senate Banking Committee heavyweights Chairman Tim Scott and Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren, the DCUC isn’t mincing words. Chief Advocacy Officer Jason Stverak laid out a clear concern: the proposed legislation has some language that could accidentally create headaches for military families abroad and treat credit unions differently than banks in ways that don’t make much sense.
“Military service should never be the reason a family loses access to its trusted credit union,” says Anthony Hernandez, DCUC President and CEO (and retired U.S. Air Force Colonel, so he knows what he’s talking about). “As Congress develops the rules for digital financial services, it must account for the Americans our country sends overseas and the credit unions authorized to serve them. We can protect their access without weakening the safeguards that protect their money.”
The issue centers on Section 10404 of the proposed Senate substitute to H.R. 3633, also known as the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. There’s a residence-based definition in there that governs payment-stablecoin rules and protections. To be clear, it’s not an outright ban on overseas access—but it creates enough uncertainty that military families and their credit unions could find themselves in regulatory limbo.
“An overseas assignment should change a family’s location, not its access to lawful financial services or its credit union’s ability to provide them,” Stverak wrote. Pretty straightforward, right?
What DCUC Is Actually Asking For
The requests aren’t complicated or unreasonable. DCUC wants Congress to explicitly include servicemembers (yes, including National Guard and Reserve folks on orders), their spouses, their dependents, and federal civilian employees on official overseas assignments in the definition of “U.S. person” for these purposes. And here’s the kicker: they shouldn’t need to maintain a physical residence stateside to qualify.
Beyond that, DCUC is asking for a broader military-service continuity provision. Basically, if you’re eligible for these financial services, you shouldn’t lose access to your accounts, payment services, digital-asset safekeeping, or payment-stablecoin redemption just because Uncle Sam sent you to Germany or Japan or wherever the mission takes you.
This protection would extend to the institutions themselves. U.S. federally and state-chartered credit unions, their authorized overseas branches, qualifying subsidiaries, credit union service organizations (CUSOs), and their service providers shouldn’t suddenly be treated as “foreign” just because they’re doing their job serving military families abroad.
Making It Work in the Real World
DCUC also wants federal financial regulators to team up with the Department of Defense and state supervisors on practical implementation details. Think military mailing addresses (APO/FPO, anyone?), official duty documentation, remote identity verification, and location-based access controls. A domestic street address shouldn’t be the only way to prove a military household’s eligibility—because that’s not how military life works.
“The requested changes would preserve sanctions, anti-money-laundering requirements, consumer protections, membership and charter requirements, and safety-and-soundness supervision,” Stverak noted. “They would not override applicable host-country laws or international agreements or require institutions to provide unsafe services.”
Translation: We’re not asking to throw out the rulebook. We’re asking to update it so it reflects reality.
Level the Playing Field Between Banks and Credit Unions
While DCUC acknowledged that the draft legislation has made meaningful progress—including clearer treatment of credit union accounts and digital-asset activities—there are still some gaps where banks get clearer guidance than credit unions do.
“Our request is not special treatment or protection from competition,” Stverak wrote. “It is a fair opportunity to provide lawful services safely, with the same clarity Congress provides to banking institutions.”
Among the specific asks: comparable authority and registration treatment, consistent safekeeping rules, including the NCUA (National Credit Union Administration) in key decisions, and protecting member savings and affordable credit.
Here’s an important clarification: “The GENIUS Act already provides an approval framework for qualifying credit union subsidiaries to issue payment stablecoins,” Stverak points out. “The proposed account corrections improve legal certainty. They do not create credit unions’ first opportunity to participate. A payment stablecoin does not become federally insured merely because a credit union is involved.”
Don’t Make Families Wait for Perfect Legislation
DCUC gets that comprehensive legislation takes time. Negotiations happen. Compromises get made. But they’re urging lawmakers not to let perfect be the enemy of good—especially when military families are the ones waiting.
If the broader CLARITY Act needs more time to work through all the complexities, DCUC wants Congress to pursue targeted fixes for the military-access issues right away. They support regulatory action where existing law allows it, but they’re realistic: some of these fixes need Congress to act because agencies can’t do it alone.
“We should not make military families or their credit unions wait indefinitely for Congress to get these details right,” Hernandez stressed. “If the broader bill takes longer, lawmakers should pursue targeted corrections that protect access and provide certainty. Our focus should remain on practical results for the people these institutions serve.”
Stverak adds, “The Americans ordered overseas to defend our country should not be left outside the financial future Congress is creating. Their credit unions should be able to serve them wherever their duty takes them.”
It’s hard to argue with that logic. When you ask people to serve their country anywhere in the world, the least you can do is make sure their banking doesn’t become a casualty of poorly written legislation.