President Donald Trump has agreed to a significant portion of a stringent ethics proposal that is part of broader cryptocurrency legislation headed for a key vote this week, according to three of the bill’s main Republican authors.

The sweeping bill initially had just a provision included that would bar all federally elected officials and their spouses, as well as federal judges, from issuing digital assets.

A core group of Democrats, as well as Sen. Thom Tillis, R-N.C., said that didn’t go far enough to address conflict-of-interest issues they had with Trump’s crypto wealth. Their votes would be needed to advance the bill in a key vote this Tuesday.

Tillis and Sen. Ruben Gallego, D-Ariz., along with several other Democrats, had demanded language that would allow state attorneys general to step in and enforce the law in addition to the Justice Department.

In announcing Trump’s agreement, Republican Sens. Cynthia Lummis of Wyoming, Tim Scott of South Carolina and John Boozman of Arkansas said it includes a “meaningful role” for state attorneys general to play in enforcing the crypto measure should it become law.

“At every step of the way during the Clarity Act negotiations, the White House and Senate Republicans have been responsive to Democrats’ stated policy objectives,” White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt said on X Sunday night. “After more than a year’s worth of negotiations, it’s time to pass this bipartisan bill.”

In private, White House officials had raised concerns about giving state attorneys general the power to enforce the law, arguing that Democratic state lawyers could use it as a political weapon against the president and other GOP officials — and that it could be used by Republican attorneys general against elected Democrats, according to two people with knowledge of the discussions.

  • dhork@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    4
    ·
    4 days ago

    He already made billions grifting everyone (and taking bribes) with crypto. A good chunk of those assets have been cashed out into more durable things (like good friends who pay for weddings ).

    Would he prefer it if he made more? Of course. But he may go along with a provision like this, as long as it explicitly limits enforcement before a certain date, so he can move on to other grifts.