Democratic Senator Chris Murphy has accused the CLARITY Act of protecting President Donald Trump’s crypto business interests, intensifying a Senate fight over the digital asset bill just as lawmakers prepare for a floor vote. Summary Chris Murphy has accused the CLARITY Act of shielding Trump’s crypto business interests. Senate Democrats are demanding stricter conflict-of-interest rules before backing the bill. The Senate is expected to begin considering the CLARITY Act between July 15 and July 20. According to statements made during a July 14 Capitol Hill press conference, Murphy argued that the legislation, in its current form, would fail to prevent the president from profiting from an industry that Congress is attempting to regulate. His remarks came shortly after Trump’s latest financial disclosure reported roughly $1.4 billion in crypto-related income, largely tied to his family’s involvement with World Liberty Financial. Democratic opposition centers on conflict-of-interest provisions Speaking at the press conference, Murphy described the CLARITY Act as legislation that would “essentially legalize Donald Trump’s crypto corruption scheme.” A video of his remarks was later shared on X. Murphy argued there is little justification for creating a new crypto regulatory framework if it does not stop elected officials from benefiting financially from the sector they oversee. https://twitter.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/2077052161792335944 Standing alongside Murphy, Senators Jeff Merkley and Chris Van Hollen repeated calls for stronger ethics rules before the bill advances. The lawmakers said they want explicit provisions preventing the president, vice president, members of Congress, and their immediate families from profiting from crypto businesses that could be affected by future regulation. The latest criticism follows an earlier push by Senate Democrats. Five days before the press conference, ranking Democrats across five Senate committees, including Senator Elizabeth Warren, requested hearings into Trump’s crypto interests after reviewing his financial disclosures. According to those lawmakers, the filings indicated that crypto ventures operated by Trump’s family generated most of his reported income. Those ethics concerns have become a central issue as the Senate debates legislation that would divide oversight of digital assets between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and the Securities and Exchange Commission while also establishing consumer protection rules and restricting a U.S. central bank digital currency. Senate vote approaches as negotiations continue Attention has now shifted to the Senate calendar after Senator Cynthia Lummis confirmed on July 15 that the joint Banking and Agriculture Committee draft has been completed and is ready for introduction on the Senate floor. Trump has separately urged lawmakers to move quickly on the CLARITY Act, although his financial disclosures have added fresh political pressure to that request. The Senate version has been under negotiation for more than ten months, with discussions over stablecoin yield provisions joining the debate alongside ethics concerns. Industry groups continue to support the legislation despite the political dispute. Coinbase executives have argued that clear crypto rules are necessary to keep U.S. digital asset markets competitive with jurisdictions such as China and the European Union, describing regulatory certainty as a national security issue. For crypto investors, the legislative timeline remains important because many analysts continue to link institutional participation in digital assets with regulatory certainty in the United States. XRP, in particular, has frequently been viewed by market participants as one of the assets most sensitive to progress on the CLARITY Act because of its long-running regulatory history. The next phase is expected between July 15 and July 20, when Lummis has indicated the Senate floor process could begin. Whether Senate Majority Leader John Thune schedules the bill quickly, or negotiations over conflict-of-interest provisions delay its consideration, will determine how the legislation moves through its final stage and whether Democratic ethics demands become part of the final package.
