U.S. President Donald Trump, during a meeting with crypto industry leaders at the White House on August 19, made a direct appeal to lawmakers: to pass a "fair version" of the CLARITY Act, a bill on the structure of the digital assets market. This statement came amid a sharp confrontation between supporters of rapid legalization and those who warn against hasty decisions.
The meeting room gathered the heads of Coinbase, Ripple, Kraken, Gemini, Robinhood, as well as the leaders of Nasdaq and Intercontinental Exchange. They were joined by SEC Chairman Paul Atkins and CFTC Chairman Michael Selig. Trump argued the need for the law citing geopolitical risks, stating that without it, the U.S. risks ceding leadership to China in the race for digital assets. In his logic, the CLARITY Act is not just regulation but a tool for preserving American dominance.
The essence of the document is the creation of a unified federal oversight system and a clear division of powers between the SEC and the CFTC. Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong expressed confidence that the law would cement the rules of the game "for decades" and estimated its chances in the Senate as high—more than 60 votes. However, as my analysis of political dynamics shows, such forecasts are premature: the bill faces serious disagreements that cannot be resolved by a simple vote.
Arizona Senator Ruben Gallego, involved in bipartisan negotiations, openly opposed forcing the process. At the Wyoming Blockchain Symposium, he stated that Republicans and Democrats must first resolve contradictions over ethical restrictions for officials, stablecoin yields, and other points. "A quick vote gives a quick result, but I'm not sure that's what you want," he emphasized, adding that lawmakers also need to complete work on the part of regulation under the jurisdiction of the Senate Agriculture Committee.
The key stumbling block remains rules limiting the participation of sitting officials in cryptocurrency projects. This ethical issue directly affects the commercial interests of the Trump family in the industry, drawing sharp criticism from some Democrats. Gallego and Republican Senator Tom Tillis prepared a compromise version of the restrictions and sent it to the White House, but apparently, the administration has not given a substantive response. Gallego himself insists: the parameters of ethical norms should be determined by Congress, not the president.
A second conflict has erupted over stablecoin yields. American banks are lobbying for stricter restrictions on reward programs, seeing them as a hidden form of interest-bearing deposits, while crypto companies view this as an attempt by traditional financial institutions to protect their deposit model from competition.
Recall that on August 6, the Senate already postponed the advancement of the CLARITY Act until the end of the summer recess, and Republican Majority Leader John Thune promised to return to the document in September. However, judging by the current dynamics, even after the chamber resumes work, we face not a quick passage but long and exhausting negotiations.
My analysis: It is telling that Trump is trying to present the CLARITY Act as a matter of national security, but the real disputes boil down to mundane economic interests—from the president's family business to banking rents. Until ethical norms are clearly spelled out and approved by both parties, the bill risks remaining just a declaration of intent. The market should not price in a swift passage of the law—most likely, the process will drag on until the end of the year.