President Donald Trump has reportedly agreed to an ethics package for the CLARITY Act, removing one of the most significant obstacles facing the United States’ proposed cryptocurrency market structure legislation.
The White House circulated the agreed language to selected Senate Republicans on July 20, according to multiple industry sources cited by journalist Eleanor Terrett. Details of the provision have not yet been made public, making it unclear how extensively it would restrict Trump, members of his family or other senior government officials from participating in digital-asset businesses.
The reported agreement is nevertheless an important political breakthrough. Senate Democrats have repeatedly warned that they would not support the legislation without enforceable safeguards addressing conflicts of interest involving elected officials and the crypto industry.
The CLARITY Act needs 60 votes to overcome procedural barriers in the Senate, requiring support from at least several Democrats. Resolving the ethics dispute could therefore determine whether Republican leaders can bring the bill to the floor before Congress leaves for its August recess and lawmakers shift their focus toward the November midterm elections.
Ethics Dispute Became Final Major Obstacle
Democratic concerns have centred on Trump’s expanding financial exposure to cryptocurrency through ventures including World Liberty Financial, the Trump-branded memecoin and other digital-asset activities associated with his family.
Recent financial disclosures reportedly showed that Trump earned more than $1 billion from crypto-related ventures during 2025. Critics argue that legislation giving the executive branch and federal regulators greater influence over the industry could create a conflict between the president’s public responsibilities and private financial interests.
Democratic negotiators have sought rules limiting senior officials from issuing, sponsoring, promoting or financially benefiting from digital assets while serving in government. Earlier discussions stalled over whether the restrictions should cover the president and vice president, their immediate families, members of Congress and other officials.
The scope of the White House compromise remains unknown. It is also unclear whether the language requires divestment, prohibits new crypto ventures or primarily imposes disclosure and transaction restrictions.
Until the text is published, the agreement should be viewed as a political commitment rather than a completed legislative settlement. Democratic senators will still need to determine whether the provision is sufficiently broad and enforceable to secure their votes.
Senate Passage Still Requires Several Steps
The CLARITY Act would divide oversight of digital assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. The CFTC would receive primary authority over spot markets for qualifying digital commodities, while the SEC would retain jurisdiction over tokens and transactions treated as securities.
The House passed its version of the legislation in July 2025 by a vote of 294 to 134. The Senate Banking Committee advanced an expanded version in May 2026 by 15 votes to nine, with two Democrats joining Republicans while warning that their support depended on further progress, particularly on ethics.
The Senate must still reconcile the Banking Committee’s provisions with separate legislation developed by the Agriculture Committee, secure 60 floor votes and negotiate a final version with the House.
Other disputes involving decentralized finance, illicit-finance controls and implementation remain possible. However, the White House’s reported acceptance of ethics restrictions removes an issue that had threatened to collapse the entire process.
For the crypto industry, passage would establish the most comprehensive US framework yet for token classification, trading platforms and regulatory jurisdiction. The latest compromise improves the bill’s prospects, but its fate will depend on the unpublished language and whether enough Democrats regard it as a genuine restriction rather than a symbolic concession.
