A major U.S. cryptocurrency market structure bill is facing renewed political resistance after three Democratic senators publicly declared they will not support the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act unless lawmakers strengthen its ethics provisions.
The opposition comes just weeks before Congress is scheduled to begin its August state work period, placing additional pressure on Senate leaders to secure bipartisan backing for legislation widely viewed as one of the most significant réglementation des crypto-monnaies proposals in years.
Les républicains ne détenant qu'une faible majorité au Sénat, le projet de loi aura besoin du soutien des démocrates pour franchir le seuil des 60 voix nécessaires à son adoption.
Points clés à retenir
- Senators Chris Murphy, Chris Van Hollen, and Jeff Merkley oppose the CLARITY Act without stronger ethics provisions.
- The lawmakers argue the legislation does not adequately address President Donald Trump’s financial interests in the cryptocurrency industry.
- Trump disclosed approximately $1.4 billion in crypto related income in his 2025 financial filings.
- Senate Majority Leader John Thune has pledged to bring the bill to a vote before the August congressional break.
- The legislation requires bipartisan support to clear the Senate’s 60 vote threshold.
Democrats Call for Stronger Ethics Safeguards
At a Capitol Hill press conference on Tuesday, Senators Chris Murphy of Connecticut, Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, and Jeff Merkley of Oregon urged lawmakers to reject the CLARITY Act unless it includes provisions designed to prevent conflicts of interest involving senior government officials.
The senators argued that the legislation should include clear restrictions preventing elected officials, including the president, from personally benefiting from entreprises de crypto-monnaie while exercising regulatory authority over the industry.
Murphy a critiqué la forme actuelle du projet de loi, arguant qu'il ne prenait pas en compte ce qu'il a décrit comme des conflits d'intérêts liés aux activités numériques du président Donald Trump.
“There is no reason to pass a new regulatory system for crypto if this system does not stop Trump’s corruption of the entire industry.”
He also questioned why the legislation had advanced through Congress without stronger safeguards addressing presidential financial interests in digital assets.
Van Hollen a fait écho à ces préoccupations, décrivant apparemment la proposition comme une législation susceptible de causer des dommages importants si elle n'était pas révisée pour inclure des normes éthiques plus strictes.
Trump’s Crypto Holdings Fuel Debate
The ethics dispute has intensified following Trump’s financial disclosures earlier this year. According to those filings, the president earned approximately $1.4 billion from cryptocurrency related ventures during 2025, including revenue tied to his memecoin and his family’s World Liberty Financial business.
Ces révélations sont devenues un point central des négociations sur la loi CLARITY, les législateurs démocrates faisant valoir qu'une législation complète sur les cryptomonnaies devrait également établir des règles régissant les conflits d'intérêts financiers impliquant des fonctionnaires.
La sénatrice Elizabeth Warren a également plaidé pour l'ajout de dispositions éthiques, rejoignant ainsi d'autres démocrates qui estiment que la législation devrait aborder explicitement les conflits d'intérêts potentiels avant d'aller de l'avant.
La sénatrice Kirsten Gillibrand, qui a soutenu une réglementation plus large des cryptomonnaies, a également plaidé en faveur de restrictions interdisant aux membres du Congrès, au président et à leurs conjoints de tirer profit des actifs numériques pendant leur mandat.
Senate Vote Approaches Despite Uncertainty
Although negotiations continue, Senate Majority Leader John Thune has reportedly committed to bringing the legislation to the floor before lawmakers leave Washington for the August work period. The timing remains significant because Republicans currently control only 52 Senate seats. Following the recent death of Le sénateur Lindsey Graham and the continued absence of Senator Mitch McConnell due to hospitalization, the party may have fewer members available during a floor vote.
As a result, bipartisan support is likely to determine whether the CLARITY Act advances. Industry advocates continue to push for passage, arguing that the legislation would establish long awaited regulatory certainty for digital asset markets and encourage institutional investment.
Brian Armstrong, directeur général de Coinbase, a déclaré précédemment qu'une législation complète sur la structure du marché pourrait débloquer d'importants capitaux institutionnels pour le secteur des cryptomonnaies.
Parallèlement, deux organisations de maintien de l'ordre, la National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives et la Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, ont publiquement soutenu le projet de loi, arguant que des règles plus claires renforceraient les efforts de lutte contre la criminalité liée aux actifs numériques.
Industry and Lawmakers Remain Divided
The debate illustrates the growing intersection between cryptocurrency policy and political ethics.
Supporters argue that the CLARITY Act would establish clearer regulatory responsibilities for digital assets and provide businesses with a more predictable legal framework. While opponents counter that legislation of this scale should also include safeguards ensuring elected officials cannot financially benefit from industries they oversee.
Alors que les négociations se poursuivent à huis clos, les dispositions éthiques constituent le dernier obstacle majeur avant que le Sénat n'examine le projet de loi.
Conclusion
The CLARITY Act remains one of the most consequential cryptocurrency bills before Congress, but its path forward has become increasingly uncertain as ethics concerns dominate negotiations.
While many lawmakers agree on the need for clearer digital asset regulations, disagreement over conflict of interest provisions has complicated efforts to build the bipartisan coalition required for passage. As the Senate races toward its August recess, the outcome of those negotiations will determine whether the legislation moves forward or faces another delay in Congress.
