White House Crypto Ethics Deal Removes Key CLARITY Act Obstacle

New ethics language would bar senior federal officials from issuing digital assets, but disagreements over enforcement continue to divide lawmakers.

The final negotiations surrounding the U.S. CLARITY Act are increasingly centered on ethics rather than market structure, as lawmakers debate how restrictions on public officials' involvement in digital assets should be enforced.

According to multiple reports, newly agreed ethics language backed by President Donald Trump would prohibit senior federal officials—including the president, vice president and members of Congress—from issuing cryptocurrencies or other digital assets while in office.

The proposal would also designate the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) as the primary authority responsible for enforcing the restrictions, rather than state attorneys general, an issue that has emerged as one of the final sticking points in negotiations over the legislation.

The latest details were discussed during an industry call with White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt, according to people familiar with the matter.

The ethics provisions follow months of negotiations aimed at establishing safeguards to prevent senior government officials from financially benefiting from digital asset activities while holding public office.

While lawmakers have reached broad agreement on many aspects of the CLARITY Act's market structure framework, ethics provisions have become one of the last unresolved issues before the legislation can advance.

The debate has intensified amid scrutiny surrounding President Trump's involvement in digital asset ventures, including his association with World Liberty Financial and the launch of Trump-branded memecoins.

Recent financial disclosures showing income linked to World Liberty Financial have added momentum to calls for stronger conflict-of-interest protections within the legislation.

Although lawmakers appear to agree on limiting federal officials' ability to issue digital assets, disagreement remains over who should oversee compliance.

The current proposal would place enforcement under the Department of Justice.

However, some Democratic lawmakers argue that state attorneys general should also have authority to enforce the ethics provisions, warning that relying solely on the DOJ could weaken oversight.

Senator Angela Alsobrooks, one of the lead Democratic negotiators on the CLARITY Act, criticized the proposed enforcement mechanism, saying she would not support the legislation if the Department of Justice remained the sole enforcement authority.

Her comments underscore that enforcement—not the ethics restrictions themselves—has become the principal point of contention.

The White House has not publicly confirmed the specific wording of the ethics provisions but reiterated its support for passing the CLARITY Act.

Administration officials said they have worked to accommodate lawmakers' concerns and warned that any failure to advance the legislation would rest with Senate Democrats.

The CLARITY Act is widely viewed as one of the most significant digital asset market structure bills under consideration in the United States, alongside stablecoin legislation moving through Congress.

The latest negotiations illustrate how U.S. crypto policymaking is expanding beyond questions of market regulation to include governance and public accountability.

As digital assets become increasingly integrated into mainstream finance, lawmakers are also seeking to define the ethical boundaries for elected officials participating in the sector.

Whether negotiators can resolve the dispute over enforcement authority may determine how quickly the CLARITY Act advances toward becoming law.