Three Democratic senators — Chris Murphy, Jeff Merkley, and Chris Van Hollen — have issued sharp criticism of the current version of the CLARITY Act, which aims to create a federal regulatory framework for digital assets in the United States. Their main demand is to include provisions in the document that prohibit the president, members of Congress, senior officials, and their families from profiting from crypto businesses.
At a press conference on July 14, which also included representatives from the Americans for Financial Reform coalition and the Indivisible movement, as well as actor and director Ben McKenzie, the lawmakers stated that the bill does not address the critical conflict of interest related to the cryptocurrency projects of President Donald Trump and his family. "There is no point in creating a new regulatory system for cryptocurrencies if it does not stop Trump's corruption in this industry," Murphy emphasized.
Anti-Corruption Amendments: What the Senators Propose
Merkley proposed incorporating provisions from the MEME Act or the End Crypto Corruption Act into the CLARITY Act. These laws directly prohibit the president, vice president, cabinet members, senior federal officials, members of Congress, and their immediate relatives from owning crypto businesses, promoting digital assets, or profiting from them. "It is not enough to prepare an amendment or a separate anti-corruption law. It must actually be stopped," Merkley stated.
Van Hollen, who previously proposed similar restrictions during the Senate Banking Committee's consideration of the CLARITY Act, also insisted on strengthening measures against money laundering, sanctions evasion, and terrorist financing through DeFi, as well as expanding disclosure requirements and introducing additional restrictions on insider trading. However, all these amendments were rejected by the committee: some through votes, others deemed improperly drafted.
What the CLARITY Act Will Change and Why It Is Criticized
The CLARITY Act, which aims to delineate the powers of the SEC and CFTC by granting the CFTC primary authority over spot trading of digital commodities and the SEC control over investment contracts, according to critics, does not address fundamental issues. "If you are developing a law on digital assets, it should protect consumers, limit illegal operations, and eliminate conflicts of interest. The CLARITY Act does not solve these problems," Van Hollen stated.
Supporters of the document argue that it introduces disclosure requirements, preserves authorities' powers to combat fraud, and establishes uniform rules for the industry. However, amid pressure from CFTC Chairman Michael Selig, who called for speeding up the bill's passage, and Trump himself, who also demanded action from the Senate, the situation remains tense. According to Americans for Financial Reform, consideration of the CLARITY Act is expected next week, starting July 20, and it will need 60 votes to overcome the procedural hurdle.
The White House administration has denied the existence of a conflict of interest, stating that the president does not handle personal finances and that his assets are managed by trusts. However, as an analyst, I believe that the absence of clear anti-corruption provisions in such a sweeping bill is a troubling signal for the market. Without them, the CLARITY Act risks becoming not a regulatory tool but a cover for lobbying the interests of a narrow group of individuals, undermining trust in digital assets as an asset class.