Esper's op-ed pushes the CLARITY Act as a national security priority. The Senate's Sept. 15 vote on advancing the bill is the next concrete hurdle.
Alpha Score of 37 reflects weak overall profile with poor momentum, weak value, poor quality, strong sentiment.
Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper urged senators to pass the CLARITY Act, arguing in a Financial Times op-ed that digital asset market structure is a national security issue, not just a financial regulatory question. Esper pointed to China building payment infrastructure outside U.S. oversight and North Korean cyber actors exploiting digital assets as threats the bill would address.
His intervention arrives as the Senate sets the next procedural step. Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633 before the August recess. The Senate Radio TV Correspondents Gallery schedules the vote for 2:15 p.m. ET on Sept. 15, one day after senators return. That vote is on whether to advance consideration, not final passage.
Esper called the legislation “not merely a financial services bill” but also a “national security bill.” He argued that bringing more digital asset activity under U.S. rules could improve law enforcement visibility and support sanctions enforcement, while reducing incentives for crypto businesses to operate through lightly regulated foreign venues. Those are Esper’s policy arguments, not independent findings about the bill’s eventual effects.
The former defense secretary cited North Korea’s Lazarus Group as an example. U.S. Treasury records identify Lazarus as a state-sponsored cyber group and link it to major cryptocurrency thefts, including the roughly $620 million Ronin bridge attack. Esper also argued that Chinese payment alternatives could weaken U.S. financial leverage. That assessment remains his geopolitical argument.
Esper’s industry ties provide relevant context. Coinbase lists him on its Global Advisory Council, which advises the exchange’s leadership. He joined the council in 2023 alongside other former national security officials.
The Senate’s July 22 merged text gives part of Esper’s argument a direct legislative basis. Section 10303 would amend 31 U.S.C. 5318A, the statute implementing Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, by adding a new special measure covering certain digital asset fund transfers. Under the proposal, Treasury could prohibit or place conditions on transfers involving foreign jurisdictions, financial institutions, or transaction classes found to present a primary money laundering concern connected to digital assets. Treasury describes existing Section 311 authority as a tool for protecting the U.S. financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing threats.
The 616-page draft also contains a dedicated illicit finance title, studies of foreign adversary activity, digital asset law enforcement training, and provisions for international cooperation against illicit finance. Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott has said the measure would make it harder for criminals and foreign adversaries to exploit the financial system.
The national security case remains contested. During the May Senate Banking markup, ranking member Elizabeth Warren argued that the then-current draft could increase national security risks. She cited concerns over DeFi, illicit finance enforcement, and protections for noncontrolling software developers.
The National Sheriffs’ Association raised related objections in a May letter, warning that parts of the earlier proposal could restrict law enforcement’s ability to pursue illicit transfers involving mixers and decentralized systems. Those comments addressed the May draft. The July version added and reorganized several law enforcement and illicit finance provisions.
The competing arguments mean Esper’s characterization should not be presented as bipartisan consensus. Supporters view clearer rules and expanded Treasury powers as strengthening U.S. security. Critics continue questioning whether exemptions elsewhere in the legislation could weaken enforcement.
The House passed the CLARITY Act 294 to 134 in July 2025. The Senate Banking Committee advanced its version 15 to 9 in May 2026.
Thune’s cloture filing keeps the legislation moving after senators failed to complete consideration before recess. The Sept. 15 vote is the next measurable test of whether leaders can assemble enough bipartisan support to move into floor debate.
The calendar remains difficult. In Grayscale’s latest assessment, research head Zach Pandl said passage during 2026 now appears unlikely because of the compressed Senate calendar and election year politics. That remains an assessment, not a determination of the bill’s outcome.
Esper’s intervention adds a former defense secretary’s voice to the security argument. It does not settle the remaining legislative disputes. The Sept. 15 procedural vote will show whether that broader framing helps the CLARITY Act secure enough support to move further through the Senate.
Drafted by a large language model from the source reporting linked above, then screened by automated publishing checks. It is not read by a journalist before publication. Some articles cite our Alpha Score. Verify prices and figures against the original source. Educational coverage, not personalized advice.