Bitcoin Magazine
New Clarity Act Draft Would Bar Trump and Officials From Issuing Crypto, With a 2029 Sunset
Senate Republicans released an updated version of the Clarity Act on Wednesday, a draft that for the first time carries a crypto ethics agreement barring the president, vice president, members of Congress, federal judges, and other covered officials from issuing or sponsoring digital assets.
The new Clarity Act text, posted after morning briefing calls with stakeholders, adds a section titled “Ban on certain digital asset transactions.” It states that a covered individual “shall not, in exchange for consideration,” issue or sponsor a digital asset, a prohibition that reaches public officials and employees during their service, and their spouses.
A companion clause bars the listing of any digital asset found to be issued or sponsored by a covered individual in violation of the ban.
The bill offers a safe harbor. A covered individual would avoid violation by placing a direct interest in a digital asset in a qualified blind trust, divesting it, or both, along procedures that track the ethics-agreement rules under section 208 of title 18.
A separate carve-out protects continued use of a covered individual’s name, image, or likeness when an issuer or intermediary used it before the person entered covered status.
JUST IN:
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) July 22, 2026
The ethics package carries an expiration date. Under the draft, the provisions have no force after noon on January 20, 2029, and no person faces penalty after that sunset for conduct on or before it. The timing lines up with the end of the current presidential term.
The ethics language answers a months-long Clarity Act dispute over President Trump’s crypto ventures, which a July financial disclosure tied to about $1.4 billion in 2025 income through the $TRUMP token and World Liberty Financial.
Eleanor Terrett reported the package was negotiated between the White House and Republican Senators Cynthia Lummis and Bernie Moreno, and that it does not carry Democratic sign-off.
Democrats on the Banking Committee had pressed for enforceable conflict-of-interest rules, and an amendment to bar officials from crypto ties failed during the May markup of the Clarity Act.
Beyond ethics, industry sources say the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act stays intact from the committee version. The BRCA holds that non-custodial developers and infrastructure providers are not money transmitters for building or maintaining decentralized networks, a protection the industry has pushed to preserve.
The Lummis-Grassley amendment keeps criminal liability for anyone who “knowingly” facilitates illicit transactions, and the Keep Your Coins Act preserves the right to self-custody.
The stablecoin-yield section holds the Tillis-Alsobrooks compromise: a ban on interest paid on idle payment-stablecoin balances, with room for rewards tied to activity such as transactions or staking, as long as those rewards do not function as interest on a bank deposit.
A new section of the Clarity Act builds out law enforcement tools. It raises funding for state and local crypto investigations and blockchain analytics, sets up training for police and prosecutors, creates a “cyber center” against nation-state actors such as North Korea and Iran, and forms a public-private task force on fraud.
It also requires stablecoin issuers to comply with lawful orders to freeze, seize, burn, and reissue tokens.
The text carries bankruptcy protections that treat customer digital assets as property of the customer rather than part of a failed company’s estate, a rule meant to head off another FTX-style loss.
The 616-page draft came from Republicans, and it lacks Democratic support for the moment.
Senator Lummis thanked her “Democratic colleagues for their important contributions” and voiced a commitment to “reaching a deal in the coming days that will allow this legislation to become law.” Majority Leader John Thune plans a floor vote in the coming weeks.
The release caps a stretch of pressure to move the Clarity Act. The House passed its version in July 2025 on a 294-134 vote, and the measure has waited in the Senate since.
The Senate Banking Committee advanced its text in a 15-9 vote in May. Coinbase and other firms have pushed for passage before the August recess, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent put the effort at the “1-yard line,” and Trump has pressed the chamber to act.
This post New Clarity Act Draft Would Bar Trump and Officials From Issuing Crypto, With a 2029 Sunset first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.
Bitcoin Magazine
White House Presses Senate Democrats To Accept Trump Ethics Deal On Clarity Act
The White House is pushing Senate Democrats to accept a conflict-of-interest agreement that President Donald Trump worked out with Republicans, a move that negotiators hope will settle the last major dispute in the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act.
A White House official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity, told CoinDesk that Trump “has agreed to the most comprehensive and wide-ranging ethics provision in history.”
No details have emerged on what crypto restrictions Trump has consented to, and Democrats have been kept out of the loop on the provision.
The ethics section would restrict senior government officials from personal business ties to the crypto industry, including Trump, whose family holdings have generated more than $2 billion in new wealth since he returned to office, according to Reuters. Release of the final draft has stalled for several days as negotiators work through the language.
Democratic lawmakers have not received a briefing on the concession, though Republicans and the crypto industry have begun a sales campaign that casts Democrats as the obstacle.
“If Senate Democrats block this historic legislation after the administration has bent over backward to accommodate their concerns, stakeholders should make no mistake: It is the Democrats who are blocking this legislation because they were never serious about a legislative outcome,” the White House official said.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has added his voice to the push, saying that lawmakers stood at the “1-yard line” on the Clarity Act and urging Congress to pass the bill before the recess.
Democratic negotiators such as Senators Kirsten Gillibrand, Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks have not seen details of the agreement with Trump, who met with Republican senators at the White House last week.
Many of the Democrats have drawn a line that the ethics provision needs to be strong. Trump has pressed the Senate to pass the Clarity Act, and his disclosure that he made more than $1 billion from crypto in 2025 has given critics fresh ammunition.
The Clarity Act’s text cleared the Senate Banking Committee in a 15-9 vote, with Gallego and Alsobrooks joining Republicans to advance it.
Both said in May they would not back the final passage without an ethics provision. During the committee markup, an amendment from Senator Chris Van Hollen to bar the president, vice president and members of Congress from crypto business ties failed 11-13.
The industry expects full circulation of the legislative text this week, according to CoinDesk.
The Senate has fewer than three weeks to finish the bill and clear a floor vote before Majority Leader John Thune’s August 7 deadline, when lawmakers break for their reelection campaigns and enter a narrow stretch to finish the bill.
Galaxy Research puts the odds of passage at 50-50.
This post White House Presses Senate Democrats To Accept Trump Ethics Deal On Clarity Act first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.
Bitcoin Magazine
U.S. Senator: Clarity Act is ‘Almost There,’ Treasury Secretary Puts It at the ‘1-Yard Line’
Senator Kevin Cramer said the Senate has moved close to a deal on the Clarity Act, the crypto market-structure bill, with a fresh set of amendments on ethics and enforcement before Democrats for review.
The North Dakota Republican, a member of the Senate Banking Committee, told Fox Business on Tuesday that the bill grows “clearer” as “each issue gets dealt with,” and that “we’re almost there.” He said the largest holdup is Democrats reading the new amendments, “some of them relevant to the ethics piece.”
The central compromise Cramer described concerns who enforces the law. He said there appears to be “some agreement that the Department of Justice would be the prevailing enforcer,” a structure he backed as the source of uniform rules. Democrats, he said, had preferred a role for state attorneys general, an approach he argued would create “too disparate a situation” for the clarity the industry seeks.
That enforcement question sits at the heart of a months-long ethics fight over President Trump’s crypto ventures.
Senator Cynthia Lummis, who chairs the Banking Committee’s digital assets subcommittee, had floated language that would let state attorneys general sue exchanges that list tokens issued by public officials, a provision aimed at holdings tied to the president and his family.
Democrats on the committee have pressed for enforceable conflict-of-interest rules, and an amendment to bar the president, vice president, and members of Congress from crypto business ties failed on a party-line vote during the committee markup.
Trump has met with senators over the ethics dispute as the White House and negotiators work toward terms. The shift Cramer outlined would route that enforcement to federal prosecutors rather than to fifty separate state offices, a change that narrows the paths available to challenge a listed token but centralizes the decision to act in the Justice Department.
Cramer said the Senate has “a couple more weeks” before the August recess, and echoed Lummis in the push for passage before the break.
“We have to get this done,” he said about the Clarity Act.
Lummis, in an interview last week, said the bill was “ready” and that it was “very important” to move it across the finish line before the recess, so that markets could see “the stability that will be provided to them if they remain on shore in the United States.”
Cramer flagged one more sticking point beyond enforcement: the definition of securities intermediaries. “The industry doesn’t like that,” he said, and noted a preference for a definition built around decentralization. He cast the remaining gaps as matters of “small details.”
The Clarity Act would split oversight of digital assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, set disclosure rules for certain tokens, and extend anti-money-laundering and sanctions rules to crypto exchanges. The House passed its version a year ago, and the measure has waited in the Senate since.
The Senate Banking Committee advanced its version of the Clarity Act in a 15-9 vote this spring, with two Democrats crossing over.
The timeline is tight. Majority Leader John Thune has aimed to bring the bill to the floor before the work period ends in early August, and House members have urged the Senate to act within the window.
The CFTC chair called the bill “so close”, while Galaxy Research cut its passage odds to 50-50 as the clock ran down.
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent added his voice to the push, telling Bloomberg that lawmakers stood at the “1-yard line” on the Clarity Act and urging Congress to pass the bill before the recess.
The bill competes for floor time with a continuing resolution to avert a government shutdown at the end of September and a reconciliation package, priorities Cramer ranked ahead of other items in the same interview. President Trump has pressed the chamber to pass the crypto measure, a message he has paired with warnings about competition from China.
For all the optimism, Cramer stopped short of a firm date. “I don’t know that we get to it this week,” he said, a caveat that leaves the bill’s fate to the narrow stretch of Senate days before lawmakers leave Washington.
This post U.S. Senator: Clarity Act is ‘Almost There,’ Treasury Secretary Puts It at the ‘1-Yard Line’ first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.
Bitcoin Magazine
Coinbase Executive Says Clarity Act Has ‘Tremendous Momentum’ in the Senate
Coinbase Vice Chair Ryan VanGrack said the Clarity Act has gained “tremendous momentum” in the Senate, in a CNBC “Squawk Box” appearance that made the case for a federal crypto framework and touched on bitcoin, blockchain, and the industry’s uneasy truce with Wall Street.
VanGrack, a former SEC official, framed the Clarity Act as an overdue set of rules rather than a giveaway. “It’s not about no regulation,” he said. “This is about imposing regulation on the industry for the first time.” He described a “win-win-win” for American investors, innovators, and standards should the measure pass, and said a bipartisan group of senators has kept up work “even in the last few weeks and days.”
The House passed its version of the Clarity Act last year, and attention has shifted to the Senate, where the path to 60 votes remains the central hurdle.
The Senate Banking Committee advanced the bill in a 15-9 vote this spring, with two Democrats crossing over, and House members have urged the Senate to act before the August recess. The measure sits in a narrow window as negotiators work out remaining terms.
President Trump added his voice last week, posting on Truth Social in support of Senator Lindsey Graham and calling on the Senate to pass the bill. Trump framed the stakes in terms of competition with China, a message he has repeated as he presses the chamber to move.
VanGrack said Democrats have won concessions that strengthen the bill’s consumer protections.
JUST IN:
— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) July 20, 2026
"The Democrats have obtained meaningful concessions to make what was already a strong consumer protection bill, THAT much stronger"
He pointed to an illicit-finance framework, an “FTX loophole” that the text would close, insider-trading safeguards, and added disclosures.
“Across the board, the Democrats have obtained meaningful concessions to make what was already a strong consumer protection bill that much stronger,” he said.
He said the bill would not change how crypto is classified as a commodity or a security in a fundamental sense, and would preserve the registration, examination, and surveillance structure from the House version.
Asked how the industry reconciles with skeptics like JPMorgan chief Jamie Dimon, VanGrack pointed to a wave of bank and institutional deals.
“Not a week goes by,” he said, where a firm fails to announce a new crypto project or investment. He predicted an “inevitable convergence,” a point at which the market stops separating traditional finance from crypto and treats each as a modern financial institution.
That convergence has played out in public, and in conflict. JPMorgan and Coinbase announced a partnership to widen crypto access, and the bank has moved to accept bitcoin as loan collateral and to let clients trade it.
Dimon, for his part, has declared war on the Clarity Act and aimed a crude insult at Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong, a reminder that the détente carries friction.
The interview turned to a sharper question from CNBC’s Andrew Ross Sorkin: whether blockchain is real but bitcoin is not. VanGrack called it “a fair question” and said the technology’s benefits stand on their own — faster settlement, more transparency, and round-the-clock transactions.
He argued that no one building a financial system today would recreate the infrastructure of the past century. He cited Citadel Securities, which he said made another large investment in the crypto economy last week, as a sign that major institutions are trending the same course.
Sorkin pressed the harder edge of the design: the technology aims to remove the counterparty a customer might call when something goes wrong. VanGrack conceded the point as fair, then countered with the costs of the current system — days to reconcile trades and the counterparty risk that delay creates.
“I’m not here to tell you it’s the wrong technology,” he said. He acknowledged open questions, including whether crypto accounts should carry interest or loyalty rewards, a debate that bankers have raised and that the law will settle as “a blunt instrument.”
He closed on the case for Clarity Act passage. “In the absence of clarity, you do not have a federal oversight and framework,” he said. “So whether you love crypto or hate crypto, you should want” the Clarity Act.
This post Coinbase Executive Says Clarity Act Has ‘Tremendous Momentum’ in the Senate first appeared on Bitcoin Magazine and is written by Micah Zimmerman.
Chainlink Labs executive Andrew McCormick has framed the CLARITY Act as a major potential unlock for institutional crypto, arguing that clearer rules could help break the compliance deadlock that has kept larger financial players cautious around digital assets.
That is a useful angle because institutional adoption is no longer just about whether banks, asset managers, or funds are interested in crypto. Many clearly are. The bigger question is whether their legal and compliance teams are comfortable enough to approve real allocations, tokenization projects, and on-chain market infrastructure.
The CLARITY Act sits directly inside that debate. It aims to clarify how digital assets should be treated under US market structure rules, including where SEC oversight ends and CFTC authority begins.
For Chainlink, the issue is especially relevant. The project has spent years positioning itself as infrastructure for tokenized assets, cross-chain settlement, data feeds, and institutional blockchain adoption. If regulatory uncertainty eases, that infrastructure story becomes easier to sell.
Reference: Chainlink Today
Crypto often talks about institutional adoption as if it is purely a demand problem.
That is only partly true. Many institutions have been studying digital assets for years. Some already offer products, custody, trading, or tokenization pilots. But large-scale adoption depends on more than interest. It depends on internal approval, legal comfort, risk limits, board-level confidence, and regulatory clarity.
That is where the CLARITY Act matters.
If a financial institution cannot clearly classify an asset or service, it has a problem. A trading desk may like the opportunity. A product team may see client demand. But compliance can still block the move if the legal treatment is uncertain.
That is the bottleneck McCormick is pointing toward.
Outdated securities-law frameworks have been a common complaint across crypto because many rules were built around traditional intermediaries, not programmable networks, tokenized assets, and decentralized settlement rails. The industry does not simply want looser treatment. It wants clearer treatment.
Clearer rules can be strict and still useful. The worst environment is one where firms cannot tell in advance which regulator will claim authority or what compliance route is available.
Chainlink’s regulatory interest is not abstract.
The network’s long-term story is tied closely to institutional infrastructure. Chainlink provides oracle services, market data, proof-of-reserve tools, cross-chain communication, and other rails that can support tokenized assets and on-chain finance.
Those use cases depend heavily on regulated institutions becoming comfortable with blockchain systems.
A bank exploring tokenized collateral needs to know what it can issue, how settlement works, and which rules apply. An asset manager considering on-chain fund units needs legal certainty. A market infrastructure provider needs confidence that data, identity, and transfer mechanics can operate inside a compliant framework.
If the CLARITY Act helps define those boundaries, projects like Chainlink may benefit indirectly.
That does not mean LINK price automatically reacts to every legislative step. Regulatory progress is not the same as token demand. But it can improve the environment for the infrastructure layer that Chainlink is trying to serve.
The important point is that regulation can act as a blocker or an accelerator. For institutional crypto, it has often been both at once.
The CLARITY Act debate matters because it goes to the core question of who regulates what.
If digital assets are treated as securities, they sit under one set of expectations. If they are treated as commodities, another structure applies. Some assets may need more nuanced treatment depending on issuance, decentralization, network maturity, and how they are used.
The market has spent years trying to infer these answers from enforcement actions, court cases, speeches, and settlements. That is not enough for institutions managing large amounts of capital.
A clearer SEC/CFTC boundary could help exchanges, token issuers, custodians, DeFi interfaces, and asset managers understand what they can do. It could also reduce the fear that a product considered acceptable today might become an enforcement target tomorrow.
That kind of uncertainty is exactly what compliance departments dislike.
For institutional tokenization, the stakes are high. The market needs rules around custody, settlement, disclosures, collateral, intermediaries, and secondary trading. Chainlink’s infrastructure can support parts of that stack, but institutions still need legal permission to use it.
It is worth keeping this measured.
The CLARITY Act is not law yet. Even if it advances, details matter. A bill can create clarity in one area while creating new friction in another. Regulators can interpret language aggressively. Institutions can still move slowly even after legislation passes.
But the reason the debate matters is clear.
Crypto does not need institutions to be reckless. It needs them to have a framework that lets them participate responsibly. If the CLARITY Act moves the US closer to that, then McCormick’s “unlock” framing makes sense.
For Chainlink and similar infrastructure projects, the opportunity is not simply more trading. It is a larger role in the plumbing of tokenized finance.
That future still depends on adoption, execution, and actual regulatory outcomes. But the connection between clearer rules and institutional participation is real.
This article is based on Chainlink Today and House Financial Services Committee materials.
This article was written by the News Desk and edited by Samuel Rae.
This report is based on information released by Chainlink Today. at Chainlink Today
Login