Exchange Ranking
Top Exchanges
24h Volume Ranking
Popularity Ranking
Exchange BTC Balance
Proof of Reserves
Decentralized Exchanges
Funding Rate
Funding Heatmap
Liquidation Data
Max Pain
Long/Short Ratio
Whale L/S Ratio
Binance/Okex/Huobi L/S
Bitfinex Margin L/S
ETF Tracker
Solana ETF
XRP ETF
Hong Kong ETF
Bitcoin Treasuries
Crypto Reversal
Ethereum Reserves
HyperLiquid Wallet Analysis
Hyperliquid Whale Watch
Large Transactions
On-chain Movement
Bitcoin ROI
Stablecoin Market Cap
Options Analysis
News
Articles
Economic Calendar
Features
Wallet
Contract Calculator
Security
Collections
Watchlist
Following
TRUMP Senators clash over cryptocurrency ethics legislation, Trump's companies face scrutiny
A simmering conflict in the U.S. Senate revolves around the CLARITY Act, a key legislative move aimed at establishing a federal regulatory framework for digital assets. Senators Cynthia Loomis and Elizabeth Warren publicly clashed over the matter, with differences centered on the bill's ethics provisions and its potential impact on former President Donald Trump.
Is there an ethical loophole in the CLARITY Act?
According to a formal analysis released by Democratic staff led by Senator Warren, the answer is yes. They pointed out that the bill's ethics provisions have significant loopholes that, in its current form, cannot prevent Trump from profiting from cryptocurrency transactions. According to reports, Trump made more than $1.4 billion in 2025 through cryptocurrency-related businesses, including participation in $TRUMP miniin and World Liberty Financial projects.
The analysis specifically pointed out that if Trump takes office again, the Justice Department, which is responsible for enforcing these ethical rules, will come under its direct jurisdiction, raising concerns about conflicts of interest. These unresolved ethical issues have led to a deadlock in the legislative process.
Warren's team argued: "The draft is full of exemptions that would allow Trump to continue to profit from cryptocurrency activities, even if they directly conflict with federal ethical standards."
Is personal bias influencing opposition to the bill?
Senator Loomis believed that there may be personal bias and dismissed Warren's criticism as a politicized attack. She accused Senator Warren of opposing the bill out of hostility to Trump rather than consumer protection considerations. Loomis emphasized that the ethical framework is designed to establish lasting regulatory principles rather than targeting specific officials.
Loomis said: "The goal is to establish strong, lasting moral standards-never intentionally targeted at any individual."
The bill stalled after it was passed by the Senate Banking Committee due to differences in moral positions. Senators Tom Tillis and Ruben Gallego have proposed a bipartisan alternative plan that aims to give state attorneys general the power to take legal action if the Justice Department fails to enforce federal ethics rules. The proposal is currently under review at the White House.
Proposal comparison
Original CLARITY draft bill
Main supporter: Senator Cynthia Loomis
Key features: Federal moral language covers cryptocurrency activities
Status: Deadlocked in Senate
With recent developments, Senator Loomis has refused further negotiations and called for a vote as soon as possible. The White House's review of the Tills-Galgo proposal will determine whether the bill can make progress before it is adjourned in August.
