Donald Trump jeopardizes Clarity Act as ethics concerns rise

The CLARITY Act, formally known as H.R. 3633, sailed through the House of Representatives with a 294-134 vote on July 17, 2025, carrying the kind of bipartisan support that crypto lobbyists once considered a fantasy. The Senate Banking Committee advanced it 15-9 on May 14, 2026. And then things got complicated.

The conflict at the center of it all

President Trump has used Truth Social to promote the CLARITY Act, framing it as essential to positioning the US as a global leader in digital assets. The problem is what else Trump’s family has been doing in the space.

The $TRUMP and $MELANIA meme tokens have drawn intense scrutiny from Democratic lawmakers, who see a sitting president’s family profiting directly from the asset class he’s simultaneously trying to deregulate.

Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee are now pushing amendments that would prevent high-ranking government officials, including the president, from benefiting financially from digital assets while serving in office. The CLARITY Act needs bipartisan support to clear the Senate, and Democrats have made their price clear: ethics provisions or no deal.

What the CLARITY Act actually does

The bill would classify the majority of blockchain-native tokens as digital commodities, placing them under the oversight of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission rather than the Securities and Exchange Commission.

The bill also aims to draw clearer jurisdictional boundaries between the SEC and CFTC. Customer asset protections are baked into the framework as well, a provision that gained urgency after a string of exchange collapses demonstrated what happens when customer funds lack regulatory guardrails.

Beyond ethics: the other landmines

Anti-money laundering regulations remain a contentious sticking point. Some lawmakers want stronger AML requirements embedded in the bill, while industry advocates worry that overly aggressive compliance mandates could push innovation overseas.

Stablecoin yield provisions present another fault line. The question of whether stablecoin issuers should be allowed to offer yield to holders touches on banking regulation, securities law, and monetary policy all at once.

With 2026 midterm elections approaching, the window for passing major legislation narrows with each week.

Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.