White House’s Newest CLARITY Act ‘Ethics’ Language Misses the Mark — Again

New text released by the White House fails to close loopholes or address conflict of interest concerns raised by ethics and oversight experts 

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Ahead of Tuesday’s Senate vote on the CLARITY Act, the cryptocurrency regulation bill moving through Congress, the White House released new ethics language late yesterday intended to address concerns raised about presidential conflicts of interest. That language fails to meaningfully address core financial conflicts of interest held by the president. As a result, Democracy Defenders Action is urging the Senate to vote no on Tuesday’s cloture vote.

“The president’s latest attempt to write his own crypto ethics bill leaves wide loopholes, giving himself time to restructure his crypto venture companies so that he can continue to draw down unprecedented profits. The newly released text is another instance of the Trump lawyers effectively creating a ‘heads I win, tails you lose’ situation for the president,” said Virginia Canter, chief counsel and director of anti-corruption and ethics at Democracy Defenders Action. “No matter what happens, Trump profits while the American public is left to wonder whether the cryptocurrency regulatory system is there to protect them or the monied interests of industry players like Trump’s family and Steven Witkoff’s sons. We strongly urge the Senate to vote no because this bill only further greenlights Trump’s crypto schemes.”

Meaningful ethics reform preserves the integrity of government action by prohibiting conflicts of interest. Analysis conducted by Democracy Defenders Action lawyers found that the text fails on the points that matter most:

• The bans are narrow and easy to sidestep. The ban on issuance, sponsorship and significant financial interest in a company are narrowly drawn and easily avoided through corporate restructuring. 
• The plurality test is undefined, and the president’s own ethics office would interpret it. The ban on maintaining a financial interest in a company only applies if that company has a “plurality” of its income coming from digital asset issuance or sponsorship, an undefined amount that might be set by regulation over the president’s ownership interests.
• The bill provides covered officials a year to restructure to avoid divestiture. The effective date provides the president up to a year to reorganize his interests to comply with the text of the law, while potentially not reducing his crypto entanglements. 
• Divestiture comes with a windfall. If Trump does divest, he could receive a windfall through a certificate of divestiture. That provision also explains that any divestiture, including gifting to an adult child, qualifies. This might lead to tax benefits not intended or available to employees who sell other assets.
• The bill allows use of “not blind” blind trusts. If Trump decides to put his assets into a “blind” trust, they would become exempt before they are sold — leaving him in the position of continuing to have the same interest but behind the title of “blind trust.”
• The enforcement provision is built to avoid enforcement. The enforcement provision is opaque and written in a way apparently intended to foil meaningful enforcement. The state AGs can only bring an action to try to force the DOJ to bring a case, and the Supervising Ethics Office can end a suit by issuing an opinion declaring an action lawful.

The public is not served by the president’s latest attempt to create loopholes around the spirit of the law by giving himself time to restructure his crypto venture companies in a way that allows him to continue to draw down profits. 

President Trump’s July 2026 annual financial disclosure revealed $2 billion in total earnings during his first year back in office, including $1.4 billion generated specifically from crypto ventures. The CLARITY Act’s White House ethics language would do little to prevent the president from continuing to profit heavily through these ventures across the rest of his administration — leaving in place the kind of financial conflict of interest that good-government groups have said must be addressed to preserve the integrity of the cryptocurrency markets.

###

Democracy Defenders Action brings together a nonpartisan team to work with national, state, and local allies across the country to defend in real-time the foundations of our democracy.

For media inquiries, contact, press@democracydefenders.org.