The Stalled Clarity Bill Reflects the Boundary Between Market Rules and Ethics

While a grand geopolitical narrative regarding the "struggle for technological supremacy with China" plays out on the surface, politics and technology are intersecting behind the scenes, facilitating the instantaneous transfer of unprecedented wealth.

President Trump’s annual financial disclosure report for fiscal year 2025 revealed that the presidential family has generated between $1.2 billion and $1.4 billion in revenue through the cryptocurrency platform "World Liberty Financial" (WLF) and various meme coins. Allegations of massive conflicts of interest arising from this have stalled the congressional passage of the "CLARITY Act"—a comprehensive regulatory proposal intended to define the structure of the U.S. market.

Meanwhile, the Democratic Party has refused any compromise, countering with the "COIN Act" (Crypto-Asset Corruption Prevention Act), which seeks to ban public officials from profiting from cryptocurrency.

How should we interpret this breakdown in national-level governance caused by the friction between power and technology?

Amendments to the federal conflict-of-interest laws (18 U.S.C. § 208), enacted in 1989, exempted the President from these regulations on the grounds that presidential decisions impact the entire economy. The lawmakers of that era envisioned assets such as real estate and traditional stocks. Today, however, we see the existence of digital assets—capable of being cashed out within hours—whose market capitalization can fluctuate by billions of dollars based on a single policy stance taken by a head of state. As value and risk have shifted from real estate to programmable tokens, the original "spirit" of the 1989 legislation has been rendered entirely hollow.

What warrants particular attention here is how the President’s camp appears to be reframing the situation within a binary narrative of "national security" and the "struggle for technological supremacy with China." This line of reasoning—which redefines digital assets from mere financial products into "strategic infrastructure" in order to dismiss allegations of conflicts of interest as "attacks that undermine the national interest"—suggests a highly complex political backdrop.