Clarity Act at a Crossroads: US Senator Pushes to Ban the President from Profiting from Crypto

Debates over US crypto regulation have entered a far more sensitive phase. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand is pushing for the CLARITY Act crypto market structure bill to include an enforceable ban preventing the president from issuing, sponsoring, or profiting from crypto assets.
The push comes as the fate of the CLARITY Act remains stalled in the Senate. A procedural vote is now scheduled for September 15, after Congress failed to resolve its differences before the August recess.
The issue is no longer merely about Bitcoin regulation
The CLARITY Act was essentially designed to establish clearer jurisdictional boundaries between the SEC and CFTC, while also determining which digital assets should be treated as securities or commodities.
But a far more fundamental question has now emerged:
How can policymakers be prevented from having direct financial interests in the industry they regulate?
The issue has grown more pressing after financial disclosures showed that crypto businesses linked to the Trump family generated more than US$1.4 billion in 2025. Senator Elizabeth Warren had previously also argued that the July version of the CLARITY Act still contained loopholes that were insufficient to prevent the president from profiting from crypto.

A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll even showed that 63% of Americans consider Trump’s crypto profits inappropriate, while 69% said his personal business interests influence government decisions.
The industry’s greatest irony
Interestingly, President Trump himself urged Congress on August 19 to promptly pass a “fair” version of the CLARITY Act. His administration is also pushing for the US to become a global leader in the crypto industry.

This is where the conflict of interest takes center stage.
The industry wants legal certainty. Some senators want ethical certainty first.
If a compromise is not reached, the CLARITY Act could be delayed again. Conversely, if a conflict-of-interest ban is successfully included with a strong enforcement mechanism, the legislation could instead gain greater political legitimacy.
Conclusion
The CLARITY Act debate is now not only about “who regulates crypto?” but also “who is allowed to profit from those rules?”
For the market, this matters. A clear regulatory framework could open the door wider for US crypto institutions and companies. But without an ethics mechanism trusted by the public, legal certainty risks being overshadowed by a political crisis of confidence.
The CLARITY Act’s biggest battle may not be between the SEC and CFTC, but between the ambition to make the US the world’s crypto hub and the demand that political power not be mixed with personal financial interests.

#btc $BTC ‌