Senators released revised ethics language as they tried to assemble the votes needed to advance a broad cryptocurrency market-structure bill. The draft would restrict digital-asset issuance by federal officeholders and create a role for state attorneys general in enforcement. The compromise responds to conflict-of-interest concerns surrounding officeholders with crypto interests, but pivotal senators had not yet publicly committed to the bill.
The reported sequence is specific. The Senate vote was scheduled for Tuesday and required support beyond the Republican conference to move forward. The revised text would bar federally elected officials, their spouses and federal judges from issuing digital assets. A further proposal would require divestment or a blind trust for a significant financial interest in an entity that issues cryptocurrency. Republican authors said the president accepted a meaningful enforcement role for state attorneys general. The proposed state role was sought by a bipartisan group that included Senators Ruben Gallego and Thom Tillis.
The remaining factual record adds operational detail. A senior Republican aide described the White House agreement as covering about 80 percent of the additional proposal, leaving details under examination. The measure would also allow state attorneys general to sue an exchange over listing a digital asset barred by the bill. Associated Press reporting placed the broader digital-asset market at about $2.3 trillion. The White House says the president is not involved in business decisions managed by his sons; critics say direct financial interests require explicit statutory controls.
The surrounding context helps define what the report does and does not establish. Presidents are not covered by every federal conflict-of-interest statute that applies to other executive-branch officials. Congress previously enacted stablecoin rules that limited some congressional financial activity without applying the same restrictions to the president and family. The CLARITY Act is intended to divide regulatory responsibilities and establish a federal framework for digital-asset markets. Ethics provisions and market rules are separate questions even though they are being negotiated in the same legislative vehicle. Statements by bill sponsors establish the state of negotiations but do not substitute for the final text or a recorded vote.
Some points remain unresolved. The final amendment text and the positions of several swing senators remained unsettled at publication time. The bill can change before a floor vote and would still require action in both chambers. The next verifiable developments are Release of the consolidated Senate text. The Tuesday procedural vote and any follow-on amendment commitments.