Failed in the Senate, Clarity Act Now in Question: White House Denies Trump Conflict of Interest
Baca dalam 60 detik
- Patrick Witt, penasihat kripto Gedung Putih, membantah tuduhan bahwa keterkaitan bisnis kripto Presiden Trump menjadi penyebab utama kegagalan Digital Asset Market Clarity Act di Senat pekan lalu.
- Witt menuduh Partai Demokrat mempolitisasi isu etika dan lobi perbankan besar ikut menggagalkan RUU yang seharusnya menjadi fondasi regulasi pasar aset digital AS.
- Kegagalan Clarity Act memindahkan fokus advokasi kripto dari legislasi ke regulator federal seperti SEC, sementara Indonesia masih menanti kepastian aturan aset kripto di bawah OJK.
The failure of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act (Clarity Act) in the United States Senate last week has sparked fierce debate in Washington, with White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt defending himself against allegations that President Donald Trump's crypto business was the main cause of the bill's collapse.
At the Financial Markets Quality conference at Georgetown University, Witt said Democrats deliberately raised the ethics issue as a political weapon. He compared it with a major housing bill that recently passed without similar ethics debate, even though Trump is known as a property developer. "Why could that bill pass without a strict and draconian ethics division?" he said, as quoted by CoinDesk.
Negotiations on the Clarity Act indeed stalled over ethics debates that were not directly related to the core provisions on market structure. The issue emerged to address potential conflicts of interest among senior government officials holding crypto assets, with President Trump as the main target. On several occasions, Trump was said to have agreed to a number of concessions that would limit his involvement in the crypto sector.
"The President agreed to not one, but two unprecedented ethics provisions," Witt said. According to him, the White House was even willing to accept rules forcing Trump to divest his crypto holdings or place them in a blind trust, as well as giving state attorneys general the authority to sue the federal government if it failed to enforce ethics.
Witt called the Democrats' allegations ironic, given that many senators on the banking committee own and actively trade shares in financial services companies they regulate. He also highlighted the role of banking lobbying, which he said helped kill the bill out of concern that stablecoin yields would compete with interest-bearing bank deposits.
Witt called big bank lobbying the trigger for the backlash against stablecoins. "It's like a wildfire that started with big banks and then spread to community banks, and they were fed a narrative," he said. He challenged banks to return to Capitol Hill to demand passage if stablecoins were truly an existential threat. "Instead they pride themselves on having killed the bill, which shows the insincerity of their argument," he added.
The failure of the Clarity Act is not just a blow to Trump's crypto agenda. The bill was designed to provide legal certainty for exchanges, stablecoins, and digital asset tokens under the jurisdiction of the SEC and CFTC. Without a legal umbrella, the US crypto industry faces fragmented rules across states and uncertainty for institutional investors. Witt signaled that Congress's year-end lame duck session is no longer a priority, and the work has now shifted to federal regulators such as the SEC.
For Indonesia, this development is an important mirror. The Financial Services Authority (OJK) is preparing a crypto asset regulatory framework that will replace Bappebti's role, with a gradual implementation target. Regulatory uncertainty in the US could slow the flow of global capital into the crypto sector, including to local exchanges that have so far relied on international market sentiment. On the other hand, the failure of the Clarity Act could strengthen the argument that Indonesia needs to move more cautiously, rather than simply imitating advanced jurisdictions.
Several analysts assess that the failure of the Clarity Act shows that the ethics issue of public officials remains a weak point in any attempt to regulate digital assets, especially when personal interests and public policy collide. They expect pressure to shift to the SEC, which under new leadership may take a more accommodating approach, even without a clear legislative mandate.
Going forward, the question is no longer whether the Clarity Act can be revived, but how far federal regulators can close the gap left by Congress. If the SEC and CFTC act on their own, the US crypto industry risks being trapped in prolonged uncertainty—and that will be felt as far as Asian markets, including Indonesia.
