4 days ago
27
A CNBC host took aim at Senator Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) for what they characterized as blocking the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act to make a political point about the Trump family’s crypto dealings. The accusation cuts to the heart of a growing rift in Washington: can Congress regulate digital assets without first settling the question of whether the president’s family should be allowed to profit from them?
A bill that almost made it
The Clarity Act cleared the Senate Banking Committee with a 15-9 vote on May 14-15, 2026. Senator Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) was the only other Democrat to support advancing the bill.
Alsobrooks, who initially backed the legislation, began laying out conditions for her continued support. On June 3, 2026, she appeared on CNBC’s Squawk Box and articulated what she wanted: enhanced provisions addressing ethics and illicit finance. The core of her concern centered on an estimated $1.4 billion in profits linked to President Trump and his family members’ digital asset activities.
Updated bill, same impasse
Between July and September 2026, the bill’s authors attempted to thread the needle. Updated text incorporated ethics language and a 2029 sunset clause, a provision designed to force Congress to revisit the rules before they became permanent.
On September 15, 2026, a procedural vote on the Clarity Act failed. The bill needed 60 votes to advance. Alsobrooks voted against it, reversing her earlier committee support.
One of the unresolved sticking points involves enforcement. Democrats and Republicans can’t agree on whether the Department of Justice or state attorneys general should take the lead in policing ethics violations under the new framework.
The industry cost of waiting
The Clarity Act was supposed to draw clean lines between which digital assets qualify as securities and which fall under commodity regulation. Without it, companies continue operating in a gray zone where enforcement actions substitute for actual rulemaking.
Alsobrooks argued that passing a comprehensive crypto regulatory framework without addressing the conflict-of-interest elephant in the room would be irresponsible. The CNBC host’s counter-argument was that by insisting on addressing Trump family profits as a precondition, Alsobrooks is effectively using the entire crypto industry as leverage in a political fight that could be handled through separate legislation.
Bipartisan negotiations are reportedly ongoing, but the ethics enforcement question remains unresolved since September. Neither party appears willing to make the first concession on whether the DOJ or state attorneys general should lead enforcement.
Disclosure: This article was edited by Editorial Team. For more information on how we create and review content, see our Editorial Policy.
English (US) ·