What Was Trump Willing to Give Up for the Crypto Bill? Adviser Reveals Two Concessions
White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt said Donald Trump was willing to accept two ethics measures that would limit his crypto interests during negotiations over the Clarity Act. The concessions Witt described were part of negotiations over the bill, which failed to advance in the Senate last week; they are not rules that have taken effect.
On Wednesday, at Georgetown University’s Financial Markets Quality conference, Witt responded to criticism that Trump’s crypto businesses create conflicts of interest. In remarks reported by CoinDesk, the adviser argued that ethics debates had overshadowed negotiations over the bill’s core market regulations.
Divesting crypto interests and the option of independent management
According to Witt, the first concession was Trump’s willingness to accept rules that would require him to divest his financial interests in crypto or transfer them to a blind trust. A blind trust holds assets under independent management, without the owner intervening in investment decisions. The statement does not mean Trump actually sold or transferred these assets.
The second issue was allowing state attorneys general to initiate legal proceedings against the federal government. Witt said the White House was also willing to accept a proposal that would open this avenue if the federal administration failed to oversee ethics violations.
The adviser described the provisions as among the most extensive ethics restrictions accepted by a president. That is Witt’s assessment; it does not describe an oversight mechanism that has begun operating following the bill’s passage.
Criticism of Democrats and bank lobbies
Witt accused Democratic senators of politicizing the issue. He pointed to the recently passed housing bill, which did not impose similar ethics conditions despite Trump’s background in real estate. He also said he found it inconsistent for some senators serving on banking committees to criticize Trump while buying and selling shares in the financial companies they regulate.
Bank lobbies were another target of Witt’s criticism. The adviser argued that concerns that stablecoin yields would compete with interest-bearing bank deposits had strengthened opposition to the bill. These are the administration’s explanations for the impasse, not independent findings that by themselves prove why the legislative process failed.