The U.S. Congress should ban presidents, their spouses, and high-ranking officials from issuing, sponsoring, or profiting from cryptocurrency while in office, U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) said on August 23. Her call for an enforceable ban made including ethics provisions a condition for supporting digital asset market structure legislation.
The New York Democrat's stance indicates her support for regulated digital asset markets rather than opposition to cryptocurrencies as such. She is a co-sponsor of bipartisan crypto legislation and advocates for federal rules balancing responsible innovation, consumer protection, anti-money laundering requirements, and regulatory compliance. Her earlier proposal concerning elected officials and their spouses focused on issuing or sponsoring digital assets, including meme coins. Gillibrand stated:
"We can adopt smart, clear rules for digital assets and end presidential self-dealing at the same time. There needs to be an enforceable ban, and any market structure bill that leaves enforcement solely in the hands of a president's own Department of Justice and allows him to profit from crypto isn't reform. It's a license to grift."
Polls and Disclosures Heighten Public Scrutiny
According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll conducted August 14-17, public concern extends beyond Gillibrand's party. Among 1,166 U.S. adults, 63% called Trump and his family's earnings from cryptocurrencies inappropriate, while 32% found them appropriate. The online survey's overall margin of error was 3 percentage points.
The same poll showed 69% of respondents believe Trump lets private business interests influence his presidential decisions, including about half of Republicans. The White House dismissed misconduct allegations, stating his investments are managed by independent financial institutions. Trump claims he is not involved in the day-to-day running of the family business.
Financial scrutiny intensified after the U.S. Office of Government Ethics released Trump's certified annual disclosure on June 30. Trump reported cryptocurrency-related income exceeding $1.4 billion for 2025, largely from World Liberty Financial and the 'Trump' meme coin.
Ethics Fight Moves to Senate Bill
Meme coins often rely more on branding, online attention, and speculation than broad technical utility. The 'Trump' token falls into this category of volatile assets, while World Liberty Financial is a separate cryptocurrency venture linked to the family. Gillibrand argues that officials promoting such assets can create financial conflicts of interest.
Her campaign initially focused on elected officials and their spouses issuing or sponsoring digital assets. Earlier coverage of Gillibrand's proposal followed data showing $636 million from the meme coin was Trump's largest single source of income in 2025. Her latest position explicitly includes profiting from cryptocurrency and activity by high-ranking officials.
The dispute is now part of a Senate battle over the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, which allocates oversight authority among federal market regulators. Critics say the current CLARITY bill contains enforcement gaps on ethics, while supporters argue it will provide clearer federal oversight.
Minority staff on the Senate Banking Committee also pointed to gaps in securities laws they say could jeopardize retirement savings, illicit finance loopholes, potential taxpayer risk, and weakened consumer protections. Several Democratic senators said provisions concerning ethics, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest, and market integrity need strengthening.
Gillibrand said:
"I will not vote to give this president — or any other president — a taxpayer-backed license to get rich off their office."
The CLARITY Act faces its first Senate vote on September 15 amid these unresolved Democratic concerns. Senators will consider a cloture motion to proceed to the bill at 2:15 p.m. Eastern Daylight Time (EDT); 60 votes are required to advance. If the cloture vote succeeds, the Senate can move to formal consideration, debate, amendments, and another cloture vote before final passage. With Republicans holding 53 seats, bill supporters would need seven votes from Democrats or independents if all Republicans back the motion. The CLARITY Act's voting process could still change as a result of an agreement between party leaders or the withdrawal of the cloture motion.
end-content
