Trump Agreed to Crypto Ethics Limits Before CLARITY Act Failed: What Went Wrong?

By Hassan Shittu

Key highlights:

  • White House crypto adviser revealed Trump agreed to “unprecedented” ethics concessions during CLARITY Act negotiations, but the Senate vote still failed
  • Beyond ethics, the bill collapsed over unresolved disputes on stablecoin rewards, DeFi rules, illicit finance protections, and enforcement powers
  • The CFTC submitted crypto market rules for White House review, the SEC advanced tokenized securities relief, and both chairs signaled they’ll proceed with or without legislation

White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt said President Donald Trump agreed to sweeping crypto ethics restrictions during negotiations over the CLARITY Act, but the concessions failed to secure enough Senate votes to advance the bill.

Witt pushed back against claims that Trump’s cryptocurrency interests contributed to the bill’s collapse, arguing that the White House had already accepted strict limits on the president’s crypto activities.

He said those concessions demonstrated that concerns over Trump’s crypto interests were not the main reason the market structure bill failed to advance.

The CLARITY Act failed despite Trump’s crypto ethics concessions: What happened?

Speaking at the Financial Markets Quality conference at Georgetown University on Wednesday, Witt said Trump had agreed to “not one but two different ethics provisions” that he described as unprecedented for a sitting president. 

The concessions included requirements that could have forced Trump to divest significant crypto interests or place them in a blind trust, as well as provisions allowing state attorneys general to enforce certain ethics rules.

The comments offer a different account of the final days of negotiations, which ended with the Senate rejecting a procedural motion to advance the CLARITY Act by a 49-50 vote on Sept. 15.

The ethics dispute had become one of the biggest obstacles after Democrats argued that existing restrictions did not adequately address Trump’s financial interests in the crypto industry. 

Trump and his family have ties to several crypto ventures, including World Liberty Financial and the TRUMP memecoin, while his administration has been working to establish a federal framework for digital assets.

Republican lawmakers had already revised the bill to address some of those concerns. The proposed ethics provisions would have prevented senior federal officials and their spouses from issuing or sponsoring digital assets while in office. 

Officials with significant financial interests in crypto issuers would also have been required to divest those interests or place them in a qualified blind trust.

The White House also agreed to give state attorneys general a role in enforcing the provisions, despite earlier concerns that such powers could expose the administration to politically motivated lawsuits.

Witt said those concessions should have demonstrated that the White House was willing to address the conflict-of-interest concerns. 

He instead pointed to broader political disagreements as part of the reason the bill failed, accusing Democrats of turning the issue into a political fight.

Witt also questioned why similar ethics restrictions were not attached to other major legislation involving industries in which lawmakers or senior officials have financial interests.

CLARITY Act stalls after Senate divisions over stablecoins and crypto rules

The ethics debate, however, was only one part of the breakdown. 

Negotiators were also divided over stablecoin rewards, enforcement powers, illicit-finance protections, and rules affecting decentralized finance and software developers.

Stablecoin rewards became particularly contentious as banks warned that certain reward structures could encourage customers to move deposits away from traditional financial institutions. 

Witt argued this opposition was driven in part by larger banks concerned about competition from stablecoins.

Notably, the CLARITY Act collapse came after more than a year of negotiations over legislation designed to establish clearer lines between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission. 

The House had already passed its version of the CLARITY Act in July 2025 by 294 votes to 134.

The Senate defeat therefore left the industry without the comprehensive market structure framework many crypto companies had been waiting for.

Still, the failed vote did not formally kill the legislation, as Republican Sen. Thom Tillis switched his vote to no for procedural reasons and subsequently filed a motion to reconsider. 

Seven Democratic senators also said after the vote that they remained committed to working on a bipartisan agreement.

Crypto rules face a new path as SEC and CFTC take the lead

The timing remains difficult, however, with Congress approaching its election-related recess and the current legislative session nearing its end.

Notably, the immediate focus has shifted away from Congress and toward financial regulators. 

Witt said at a CoinDesk policy event that the administration is now looking to agencies such as the SEC and CFTC to continue developing crypto rules.

Those agencies have already indicated that they intend to move ahead. 

CFTC Chair Michael Selig said the agency was prepared to use its existing authority to advance crypto market rules, while SEC Chair Paul Atkins said the regulator would continue its work with or without new legislation.

The CFTC has since submitted a crypto market regulatory action for White House review, while the SEC has moved forward with temporary relief covering certain forms of on-chain trading of tokenized securities.

Source:: Trump Agreed to Crypto Ethics Limits Before CLARITY Act Failed: What Went Wrong?

Updated: September 24, 2026 at 11:45 am
Tags: , , , ,