On July 21, sources revealed that President Trump has agreed to include ethical provisions addressing digital asset conflicts of interest for the president and federal officials in the CLARITY Act (Digital Asset Market Structure Act). The White House is pushing Senate Democrats to accept the agreement, though the specific concessions remain undisclosed.
According to reports, the ethics clause text was delivered to some Republican senators on the afternoon of July 20, but Democrats had not yet seen it at that time—and Democratic votes are precisely the key to whether the bill can move forward.
Strongest or too lenient?Republican Senator Bernie Moreno told CNBC that Trump has accepted what he described as "the strictest ethical language in U.S. history," calling it the strongest such provision in congressional legislation. The White House has not disclosed the specifics of the concessions.
But the Democrats’ assessment is almost the opposite. Senator Ruben Gallego—one of the Democrats most deeply involved in these negotiations—has already publicly criticized the Republican proposals as too lenient. Senator Cory Booker put it more cautiously: the only way to truly get this done is through bipartisan negotiation.
The Republicans want a framework that Trump can sign and that can be publicly justified; the Democrats, especially those deeply involved in the negotiations, want a set of rules that truly hold parties accountable and close loopholes.
"Corruption" allegations On July 14, Senator Chris Murphy, along with Chris Van Hollen and others, held a press conference in Washington, publicly labeling this version of the bill as a "corrupt" bill. Murphy stated that if this mechanism cannot prevent Trump from corrupting the entire industry, then the bill has no value.
Murphy’s reference to "corruption" points to a specific structural conflict of interest红线: ethics provisions must prohibit senior officials from holding or profiting from digital assets they are supposed to regulate.
This red line cannot be avoided because Trump’s own financial records are too glaring. According to the 2025 Annual Public Financial Disclosure released by the U.S. Office of Government Ethics, Trump’s total income in 2025 was at least $2.2 billion, with approximately $1.4 billion coming solely from his family’s cryptocurrency business. This disclosure has quickly become a key basis for Democrats pushing for ethical reforms.
Trump's side claims that the relevant assets have been placed under the management of a family trust and that he does not participate in specific decisions—but Democrats argue that this explanation holds limited persuasive power given the fact that the president remains the ultimate beneficiary.
Hint at pressure Trump has smartly taken control of the narrative. According to reports, his administration has publicly claimed it has "done everything possible" to address the Democrats' concerns, implying that if the bill ultimately fails to advance, the blame lies with the Democrats.
This is also seen by outsiders as an attempt by the White House to increase negotiating pressure: by first showing concessions and then attributing subsequent obstacles to whether the Democrats accept them. The window for the Democrats to respond is indeed narrow—if senators cannot pass the bill within the next three weeks, most analysts believe it will be difficult to advance before the midterm elections. The Senate will enter recess during the first week of August, after which the congressional agenda will be entirely dominated by the midterm elections.
Final push before adjournment For institutional players and professionals in the space, this prolonged battle over the president’s own conflicts of interest is increasingly resembling an additional political tax—issues the bill was meant to address, such as the regulatory division of responsibilities between the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), and the legitimacy of market structure, have been set aside while both parties wait to solve the question of “who gets to profit from crypto” first.
When the bill text will be finalized and whether Democrats will ultimately agree to the deal remain unanswered. But one thing is clear: the fate of the CLARITY Act may not depend on how much Trump concedes, but on whether the differences between both sides can be narrowed to an acceptable range before Congress adjourns.
The content of this article is for reference only and does not constitute any investment advice. The market carries risks; invest with caution.