News

A significant event took place in Washington late last week, which many are calling a turning point in cryptocurrency regulation at the highest level. Donald Trump, after meeting with a group of Republican senators and his top adviser, gave preliminary approval to the CLARITY Act. This bill aims to impose strict restrictions on digital asset transactions for the president, vice president, members of Congress, and all federal government employees while in office. This information was reported by The Block, citing anonymous sources close to the negotiations.

The meeting itself was held behind closed doors, and participants—Senators Bernie Moreno and Cynthia Lummis, as well as White House lead crypto adviser Patrick Witt—opted to refrain from public comment. This secrecy gave rise to numerous rumors and various interpretations. Initially, one insider told reporters that the president disagreed with some of the language and was unwilling to support the bill in its current form. Moreover, he allegedly feared that certain provisions could be used against him in the future, posing risks to his political and financial reputation. These concerns seemed so significant that the negotiators left the meeting without reaching any clear agreements.

However, a few hours later, The Block published updated information that radically changed the picture. According to the new information, Trump has approved key provisions of the CLARITY Act, and the final version of the bill is now being prepared for submission to the Senate. If the upper chamber of Congress votes in favor of the bill, it will be sent to the House of Representatives, and after approval by both chambers, it will be submitted to the president for signature. According to sources, the final version of the bill could be presented in the coming days, and the administration hopes for expedited consideration, despite the busy congressional schedule.

It's worth noting that, on the eve of this meeting, Politico reported that the chances of passing the CLARITY Act were extremely low. The primary reason cited was the lack of support from Democrats, whose votes are needed to override a potential veto and ensure a quorum. Without bipartisan agreement, the bill risked remaining a mere Republican minority initiative. However, the situation changed after Trump publicly spoke on his social media account, TruthSocial, about the need to pass an act in memory of the recently departed Senator Lindsey Graham. This statement was seen by many as a signal to both Republicans and Democrats that the president is prepared to provide political support for the act, which could tip the scales in his favor.

The key and most controversial provision of the bill is a complete ban on the president, vice president, members of Congress, and federal employees from profiting from digital assets, whether through direct investment, mining, staking, or participation in initial coin offerings. Exceptions are proposed only for assets held in "blind trusts" or managed by independent parties without the ability to influence operations. However, even these relaxations have drawn criticism from advocates of stricter regulation. It is precisely because of these disagreements that bipartisan negotiators were unable to reach a compromise by July 4th, despite the original plan to time the bill's passage to that date.

The CLARITY Act clearly demonstrates how difficult it is to balance innovation, private interests, and public ethics in modern Washington. Cryptocurrencies have long ceased to be the preserve of enthusiasts and have become a serious financial instrument that cannot remain outside the legal framework. However, attempts to introduce high-level restrictions are facing resistance not only from lobbyists but also from politicians themselves, accustomed to using various methods to increase their personal wealth.

In Trump's case, his agreement to the proposed restrictions appears to be a pragmatic move, driven less by personal convictions than by the need to preserve his political capital and avoid accusations of a conflict of interest. The bill's future fate depends on whether its supporters can convince Democrats to vote for it, despite their initial objections.