CLARITY Act stuck on Trump's $1.4B crypto divestment

Loopholes in the Fine Print

Democrats and government watchdog groups argue the current language contains significant gaps. The main complaint centers on what the bill leaves out: revenue-sharing arrangements and licensing deals that involve family entities. Those structures could continue generating income from crypto ventures without technically violating the divestment mandate, critics said.

The temporary nature of the ban adds another layer of skepticism. A restriction expiring on January 20, 2029 aligns with the end of a potential second term. Several Democratic senators said any meaningful ethics framework should outlast a single administration. They have made the ethics language a prerequisite for supporting the bill.

The CLARITY Act aims to settle the jurisdictional fight between the SEC and the CFTC over digital assets, a conflict that has created inconsistent enforcement and slowed institutional adoption. A clear federal framework would remove a major barrier to deeper crypto allocation by pension funds and asset managers, several lobbyists said.

Tokens tied directly to Trump's ventures face the most immediate exposure. If the bill passes with strong divestment requirements, projects that rely on branding or revenue-sharing agreements with the president's family could need structural changes. Licensing arrangements might be restructured, and some entities may need to unwind current deals.

The bill's next markup is expected in September, according to a Senate aide. No date has been set for a floor vote.