07-29-2026 
|
Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...
|
The U.S. Senate is bracing for blowback as hopes for the August passage of its crypto market structure legislation appear deader than a doornail.
- CLARITY’s hourglass rapidly running out of sand
- Senate Dems hold ethics forum, but do voters care that Trump’s corrupt?
- Illicit finance language still dividing lawmen/lawwomen
- Wall Street bankers love CLARITY, Main Street bankers don’t
- Americans still unsure what stablecoins are
- Schumer offers names for potential CFTC/SEC nominees
- Crypto’s sharp campaign finance elbows could backfire
If you’re holding your breath in anticipation of the Senate holding a floor vote on its digital asset market structure bill (the CLARITY Act) by August 7—the final sitting day before the Senate’s month-long summer holiday—it seems you can safely exhale now.
In an appearance this week on Fox News, Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) was asked about his legislative priorities as the congressional calendar counts down. Amidst a list of pressing items, Thune said “we will probably have a vote on the CLARITY Act … that is in front of the Senate. We will see if Democrats give us the vote.”
Given the complex Senate rules regarding timing and procedure ahead of Senate votes, you should read ‘probably’ as ‘it ain’t gonna happen,’ at least, not in August. The denizens of ‘crypto twitter’ won’t like hearing this, but their sole reason for getting out of bed every morning is a far lower priority than other legislative matters competing for the Senate’s attention. And yet…
On Tuesday, Politico quoted Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) saying the bipartisan negotiations over CLARITY’s primary sticking point—the ‘ethics’ issue, aka Dems’ desire to limit President Trump’s ability to make major bank off crypto ventures—could produce revised ethics language to send to the White House for consideration in the “next couple days.”
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-NC), the GOP’s point person in the ethics negotiations, said the revised text will eliminate the current draft’s ban on state attorneys-general bringing charges against those who violate the ethics provisions. Dems claimed that this White House-approved ban, which restricted prosecutions to the discretion of the federal Department of Justice, was a dealbreaker given that the Department of Justice (DoJ) is currently led by Todd Blanche, Trump’s former personal lawyer.
Trump previously refused to entertain tougher ethics language, so why he might agree to any new proposal along those lines remains a mystery. But with growing media attention on the president’s profiteering, Dems seem determined to force Trump to publicly resist efforts to restrain his activities ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.
But do voters give a damn?
On July 27, several Democratic senators held a two-hour public forum on Capitol Hill aimed at shining an even brighter spotlight on Trump’s crypto profits.
Needless to say, the forum’s rhetoric was incendiary, with Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) kicking things off by reminding viewers that Trump made $636 million from his $TRUMP memecoin while retail $TRUMP holders lost a combined $3.8 billion. Blumenthal’s message was that “Trump’s profits had victims. Corruption has costs … lost retirement accounts, sacrificed savings, houses in foreclosure, losses that changed their lives.”
The forum heard from one of those lives, a crypto fraud victim who lost $675,000 to a scammer. Also giving testimony was John Reed Stark, a 20-year veteran of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), former actor turned anti-crypto crusader Ben McKenzie, and representatives from public watchdog groups, none of whom had anything good to say about Trump’s ethics or lack thereof.
But do GOP voters care? This week, Bloomberg published a David Drucker op-ed in which he revealed new polling data that purportedly shows Trump’s base don’t see his billion-dollar-plus crypto profits as anything all that scandalous for a sitting U.S. president.
Using data supplied by the More In Common research group, Drucker claimed 35% of Trump voters believe he “uses the presidency for personal benefit more” than other recent presidents, 34% said he profits off his office less than others, while 24% said “about the same.”
Just 16% of Trump voters believe he’s motivated primarily by personal gain, compared to 54% who believe he’s driven by a “love of America,” while 25% said it was a mix of greed and good.
Unsurprisingly, More in Common’s Beyond Maga report found the view that Trump is less corrupt than other presidents was strongest (69%) among ‘MAGA Hardliners’ and weakest (19%) among so-called ‘Reluctant Right’ voters. However, that report was conducted in August 2025, long before the full extent of Trump’s crypto enrichment became public knowledge.
Those ‘reluctant right’ voters are described as “the most ambivalent cohort of Trump’s [2024] coalition, and the group most likely to have voted for Trump transactionally.” The group represents 20% of the coalition, and their unwillingness to go to bat for the GOP come November could prove pivotal.
Drucker’s conclusion? “When voters get frustrated enough on the issues that matter most, they pay closer attention to the full breadth of a politician’s record. Suddenly, irritations ignored or rationalized become resentments … voters angry about the price of groceries or the cost of a gallon of gas may yet conclude they’re not copacetic with Trump using the White House as a money tree after all.”
Illicit finance still a matter of debate
Meanwhile, the argument over CLARITY’s ‘illicit finance’ language shows no sign of letting up. On July 24, the National Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) became the latest group of lawmen to reverse their original opposition to CLARITY.
The FOP previously declared that the legal immunity offered to developers of noncustodial decentralized finance (DeFi) platforms “would limit the ability of prosecutors to pursue cases of financial crimes in which cryptocurrency is used.” The FOP’s national president Patrick Yoes now says the group’s 382,000 members “are satisfied that the provision does not limit the ability of law enforcement and prosecutors to address unlawful conduct involving digital assets.”
Yoes claims the changes in the revised CLARITY’s illicit finance text “provides the certainty law enforcement requires while allowing responsible innovation to proceed … Accordingly, the FOP’s initial concerns have been satisfactorily addressed and we look forward to working with you to get the amended bill passed.”
The FOP’s letter to Senate leaders follows recent declarations by the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) and the Major County Sheriffs of America (MCSA) that voiced their support for (or at least, lesser opposition to) the new & improved CLARITY.
But not all lawmen (or lawwomen) are as pleased. On July 28, New York Attorney General (NYAG) Letitia James gave testimony at a public hearing of the Senate Committee on Homeland Security & Governmental Affairs’ Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations.
James told the subcommittee that CLARITY “will reduce the number of cops on the beat by restricting state and local law enforcement” and “seeks to interfere with and pre-empt states’ investor protection laws as well as dilute our ability to prosecute fraud. This is a mistake.”
James noted that state and local law enforcement account for 98.8% of all U.S. arrests, and yet CLARITY “would neuter state and local law enforcement by pre-empting states and preventing them from fully prosecuting rampant fraud and violations of law by actors in the cryptocurrency marketplace.”
James pointed to the DoJ’s April 2025 announcement that it would limit its prosecutions of digital asset platforms, coin mixing services, and offline wallets. The DoJ also disbanded the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (NCET) that launched under former President Biden.
James referenced the SEC’s similar ‘stand down’ approach that resulted in “the fewest number of enforcement actions” last year as the SEC stopped pursuing existing cases and declined to bring many new ones. James also raised the “additional concerns” stemming from the “conflicts of interest” in Trump’s crypto profiteering.
James suggested a number of potential revisions to CLARITY, including tougher rules for elected officials overseeing crypto, and allowing state and local regulators to enforce these provisions.
James also suggested a ban on allowing conversion to dollars of tokens emerging from coin mixers; holding platforms and intermediaries “financially liable” if they fail to adequately protect consumers from fraud and scams; and designating any individual doing business with U.S.-based users as “a United States person for purposes of enforcement.”
Banking on division
Another CLARITY conflict zone is whether to toughen language regarding crypto platforms’ ability to offer ‘yield’ or ‘rewards’ to customers who engage in certain stablecoin-based activities on said platforms. Retail bankers fear that their own customers will mass-withdraw savings account deposits to access these greater returns, which community banks claim will limit their ability to offer small business loans.
Punchbowl News’ Brendan Pedersen quoted Sen. Thune saying that there was “a lot of swirl” around the yield/rewards issue, calling it something “the banks care deeply about.”
But this issue is less of a concern for financial institutions lacking a major retail footprint. Case in point: last week saw Goldman Sachs (NASDAQ: GS) CEO David Solomon throw his company’s support behind CLARITY, saying clearer rules of the crypto road will convince institutions “that have been on the sidelines to participate more actively.”Solomon’s statement was quickly followed by a tweet from Anthony Noto, CEO of personal finance company SoFi (NASDAQ: SOFI), who thanked Goldman for “adding its voice to the effort.” Noto expressed SoFi’s ‘active’ support for CLARITY and noted that the two firms are “both examples of Banks that do not see this the same way as ‘other banks.’”
These statements appear to have convinced other Wall Street giants to come out the CLARITY closet. BlackRock (NASDAQ: BLK) provided a statement to Politico calling the bill an “important step toward establishing a regulatory framework for digital assets that puts investors first.”
The public policy X account of Fidelity soon claimed that “the time is now for clear rules of the road that are essential to strengthening investor confidence, providing certainty for market participants, and reinforcing U.S. leadership in global digital asset markets.”
Franklin Templeton (NASDAQ: FTGTX) then added that CLARITY “would make clear how crypto is regulated. Investors would know what protections apply. Firms would know which regulators they answer to.”
Ironically, the same Politico article in which BlackRock professed its CLARITY support featured ads from the American Bankers Association (ABA) urging voters to contact their senators and tell them to “strengthen the Clarity Act” because “lending in your state is at risk.”
Americans still confused over stablecoins
The ABA was one of several retail banking groups, including the Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA), that issued a joint statement last week emphasizing their ongoing dissatisfaction with CLARITY’s stablecoin language. The ICBA’s website even features an interactive map that lets users see how “stablecoin growth could put small business credit at risk” in their respective states.
Despite community banking groups continuing to sound the alarm, a new report from PYMNTS Intelligence shows the vast majority of credit union customers still aren’t completely sure what stablecoins are or do. The report, The Wallet Effect: How Credit Unions Can Close the Digital Currency Access Gap, found little difference in consumer attitudes towards stablecoins versus the broader ‘crypto’ landscape, suggesting most consumers don’t recognize any distinction between the two categories.
For instance, it probably won’t come as a surprise that millennials are far more eager than boomers/senior citizens when it comes to anything crypto. But while 31% of millennials express ‘strong interest’ in making ‘crypto payments,’ that interest falls to 28% when it comes to making ‘stablecoin payments.’ One would expect the stablecoin figure to be higher, given stablecoins’ lack of volatility compared to tokens not pegged to fiat assets.
Similarly, some 94% of boomers/seniors report ‘little or no interest’ in making stablecoin payments, two points higher than those who said the same about ‘crypto payments.’ PYMNTS said the findings suggest that stablecoins “have not established a separate identity with most consumers,” and this lack of familiarity means “consumers often carry over assumptions about crypto, including concerns about volatility.”
Quorum decorum
At this week’s Trump ‘ethics’ forum, former SEC man John Reed Stark claimed the agency “has become the loudest promoter of the most dangerous, most demonstrably worthless, and most crime-enabling asset class in the history of American finance.” Stark called current SEC Chairman Paul Atkins the “chief Ponzi officer” who “tours the crypto circuit like a sycophant.”
It’s far less talked about, but Dems’ issues with CLARITY extend to the ‘quorum’ issue, aka Trump’s disinterest in ensuring (a) that five-member agencies like the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) are actually comprised of five members, and (b) that the minority party receives two seats on these agencies to ensure a diversity of opinions is voiced before major regulatory decisions are made.
Earlier this month, Democrats and the White House blamed each other for the fact that the SEC is currently staffed by three Republican appointees and zero Dems, while the CFTC has been a GOP-appointed one-person affair for nearly 11 months now.
Having been challenged to produce a list of potential individuals that Trump could nominate for the CFTC/SEC posts, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) has reportedly called the White House’s bluff. On Monday, Semafor’s Eleanor Mueller tweeted that Schumer had submitted “two names each for the SEC and CFTC” for Trump to consider nominating.
Mueller’s scoop was subsequently confirmed by other reporters, although the names of Schumer’s nominees have yet to leak. Mueller quoted one of her sources saying, “nobody wants any of these nominees to get flamed before they get a fair chance.”
That’s a possible reference to the vitriol that emerged from the Better Markets watchdog group last month after Schumer floated the idea of submitting former CFTC Commissioner Christy Goldsmith Romero’s name as a potential SEC seat-filler. The watchdog cited Goldsmith Romero’s pivotal role in voting for the CFTC to end its legal fight with the Kalshi prediction market as making her unfit for future government service.
Regardless, White House crypto advisor Patrick Witt’s reaction to the nomination news was to tweet: “Let’s not kid ourselves. Chuck Schumer is doing the absolute bare minimum here to avoid Democrats being blamed if Clarity fails to pass. No one is fooled.”
Blame game could backfire
At Monday’s corruption forum, Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) called the Trump administration “the most corrupt presidency in the history of the United States” and urged colleagues not to vote for CLARITY, suggesting that “we don’t need our fingerprints at this crime scene.”
But on July 27, the detectives at the crypto astroturf ‘grass roots’ group Stand with Crypto (SwC) put senators on notice, saying “we will be scoring votes on the CLARITY Act.” The notice claimed “crypto voters across the country are paying attention to which lawmakers stand with them in this critical moment.” (Insert chilling organ music here.)
SwC has issued similar warnings prior to other Congressional crypto votes as an unsubtle form of intimidation. SwC relies on funding from the Coinbase (NASDAQ: COIN) digital asset exchange, which is also a primary funder of the crypto-focused Fairshake political action committee (PAC) that has hundreds of millions of dollars on hand to both reward friends and punish foes in the midterm elections.
SwC likes to claim that its politician ‘score cards’ influence how Americans vote. However, less biased sources have shown that only 4% of voters give a damn about a candidate’s crypto stance (which explains why crypto-financed campaign ads never mention anything to do with crypto).
Now, a new study claims Dems who reject crypto campaign contributions might fare better against a Republican opponent than Dems who accept crypto cash. The survey, conducted by Data for Progress (DFP), showed 1,207 likely voters hypothetical matchups between generic Dem/GOP candidates with various campaign financing sources.
DFP found that Dem candidates “who take money from AIPAC [the American Israel Public Affairs Committee], AI [artificial intelligence] companies, cryptocurrency companies, and pharmaceutical companies perform significantly worse against a Republican candidate averaged across all funding sources.”
Even worse, the crypto sector ranks third from the bottom in terms of the types of PAC contributions that are most toxic to Dem voters. Crypto was deemed only slightly less offensive than AIPAC and the AI industry, while ranking lower than the pharmaceutical industry and the National Rifle Association (NRA). No word on how SwC would score that result.
Watch | Unlocking crypto futures: Key takeaways from Blockchain Futurist 2025
Recommended for you
