Gallego Rejects GOP Ethics Clause, Vows Bipartisan CLARITY Act Rewrite

Woofun AI reports that Senator Ruben Gallego has formally rejected the ethics provisions embedded in the latest Republican-backed revision of the CLARITY Act, citing a disconnect with months of prior bipartisan discussions. This move escalates the debate over conflict-of-interest rules for federal officials involved in digital asset oversight.

The legislation, formally titled the Crypto Lending and Asset Regulation for Institutional Transparency and Yield Act, seeks to establish a federal framework for digital asset lending and custody. Senate Republicans recently released a revised version featuring an ethics clause that bars all federal officials, including President Donald Trump, from issuing or endorsing digital assets.

Gallego characterized the Republican proposal as unserious, arguing it fails to reflect the bipartisan compromise developed behind the scenes. He stated that the current ethics language is inadequate and does not address key concerns raised during months of negotiations. Consequently, he plans to present new language in the coming days to rectify these deficiencies.

Per Woofun AI, the senator’s office confirmed that discussions with Republican lawmakers remain ongoing, with the goal of passing a bipartisan bill through both chambers. The CLARITY Act stands as one of the most significant pieces of digital asset legislation currently under consideration in Congress. The inclusion of ethics provisions targeting executive branch officials highlights growing bipartisan concern over conflicts of interest in the crypto space.

Gallego’s push for stronger language suggests the final bill may enforce more stringent ethics requirements than initially proposed. For market participants and consumers, the outcome will determine how digital assets are regulated, taxed, and traded in the United States. This standoff underscores the ongoing difficulty of crafting bipartisan crypto legislation, with the next version testing whether lawmakers can bridge their differences on ethics and regulatory scope.