Patrick Witt, the crypto adviser for the White House, stated that Republicans have conceded as much as 95% of the points requested by Democratic negotiators regarding the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, arguing that any remaining Senate opposition must be purely political.
During a Monday appearance in Washington, Witt remarked that President Donald Trump deserved a major expression of gratitude for his recent willingness to compromise further on government ethics regulations within the Clarity Act.
Speaking at a Solana Policy Institute summit, Witt noted that these measures are unprecedented and historic, adding that he would not want to be a Democrat casting a vote against them.
He expressed feeling very positive about the upcoming Senate vote on what he described as the result of an extensive, bipartisan initiative, while cautioning that whether it secures enough yes votes could depend on political calculations rather than policy assessments.
Late Sunday, Senate Republicans released a revised draft of the Clarity Act, incorporating additional concessions to Democrats regarding the primary government-ethics section and other matters, such as the criminal prosecution of decentralized finance initiatives. Nevertheless, this compromise was not formulated alongside Democrats, and initial reactions indicate resistance. The legislation requires substantial support from Democrats to clear the Senate’s 60-vote requirement.
Democratic staff members on the Senate Banking Committee pointed out on Monday that the updated text grants Trump’s own appointees—specifically the attorney general—excessive authority to halt enforcement of the ethics provisions. They also argued that the legal power granted to states to challenge the attorney general instead of individual violators is inadequate.
Supporters and industry participants spent Monday cheering for the advancement of the Clarity Act, which faces a crucial hurdle on Tuesday with the first of several planned votes to move the legislation forward on the Senate floor. This initial vote is widely viewed as an indicator of whether the long-awaited, 600-plus-page bill is on track for final passage.
However, the legislative path encounters numerous obstacles. A significant coalition of state attorneys general has already stated their opposition to how the bill addresses their legal authority to penalize bad actors. Conversely, the cryptocurrency sector remains uncomfortable with the new text’s approach to decentralized finance.
Despite introducing fresh proposals to safeguard bank deposit accounts from stablecoin competition, the banking industry’s initial response was also negative. A coalition of banking trade associations published concerns raised by institutions of all sizes regarding the risks of deposit outflow and reduced lending linked to permitting yield generation on payment stablecoins.
In a letter directed to Senate leaders, the groups explained that the current legislative language contains loopholes and pathways allowing restrictions to be easily bypassed, thereby enabling interest and interest-like payouts on stablecoin holdings.
Witt dismissed worries about potential deposit migration driven by stablecoin reward programs, calling them entirely speculative and hypothetical concerns.
He questioned what more critics could want, highlighting the extensive bipartisan discussions that incorporated feedback from both political parties and impacted sectors. He added that opposing the Clarity Act simply out of an animosity toward crypto is acceptable, provided opponents state it plainly.
Even if more than 60 senators vote in favor to advance the bill, achieving the threshold required for cloture, the initial vote does not conclude the procedure. A phase for potential amendments will follow, alongside subsequent votes. Should the Senate ultimately grant its approval, the legislation must then return to the House of Representatives.
The complication in the House is that lawmakers are not currently in session and might not reconvene until after the November midterm elections, meaning final action on the bill could occur during a post-election lame-duck session.
Representative Tom Emmer, a pro-crypto lawmaker and House majority whip, emphasized that losing another year is unacceptable, arguing that lawmakers must get the job done regardless of whether everyone loves the contents.
The ultimate hurdle for the Clarity Act has centered on the ethics section, which would impose restrictions on crypto associations for numerous federal officials, including President Trump. Democrats asserted that the legislation must resolve what they view as corruption within the Trump administration, focusing primarily on the president’s personal financial stakes in crypto.
Although the president made an initial concession on the matter, Democrats deemed it insufficient. Witt stated that officials met with Trump on Friday to discuss the provision, leading the president to accept further limits that could compel him to place his investments into blind trusts while granting states certain powers to address federal ethics breaches.
Witt described the current phrasing as the most robust provision ever present in federal ethics legislation, noting that Trump was assured the ethics section could not be weaponized against him.
Even so, the authority of state attorneys general would not permit them to directly pursue ethics violations against the federal officials covered under the section, which includes the vice president, members of Congress, and federal judges alongside the president. Nevertheless, Witt pointed out that states would acquire unprecedented powers to target cryptocurrency exchanges listing improper assets as well as the U.S. attorney general.
He urged that the bipartisan bill is worth supporting, stating that proponents are attempting to rectify past efforts aimed at dismantling the industry.
Witt noted that a failure of the Clarity Act would not halt U.S. regulatory initiatives, explaining that the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission remain prepared with active rulemaking agendas.
He concluded that those agencies have responsibilities to fulfill regardless of the outcome, promising that more positive news remains ahead for the sector.
Originally published at https://www.coindesk.com/policy/2026/09/14/white-house-crypto-adviser-says-trump-gave-up-historic-ethics-powers-in-compromise.
