A group of 160 former national security, intelligence, and law enforcement professionals has thrown its weight behind the CLARITY Act, urging the Senate to move forward with cryptocurrency market structure regulations that they say are critical for national security. In a letter delivered this week, the signatories — all of whom held senior roles across U.S. agencies — argued that the current patchwork of oversight leaves the country vulnerable to illicit finance and foreign adversaries.
Who signed on
The list includes former directors of the CIA and FBI, former deputy secretaries of defense, and ex-chiefs of the National Security Agency. Retired generals, former homeland security officials, and past heads of the Drug Enforcement Administration also put their names to the appeal. The group spans both Republican and Democratic administrations, signaling rare bipartisan consensus on the need for tighter crypto rules.
Why national security matters here
The letter frames the CLARITY Act not as a market tweak but as a safeguard. The former officials argue that without a clear federal framework, cryptocurrency exchanges and protocols can be exploited by state-backed hackers, ransomware gangs, and sanctions evaders. They point to recent North Korean crypto heists and Iranian oil-trading schemes as evidence that the status quo is failing. “This isn't just about investor protection,” the letter states — a rare direct quote from the facts — “it's about keeping the country safe.”
What the CLARITY Act would do
While the exact text of the bill isn't detailed in the letter, the signatories characterize it as a market structure bill — meaning it would define which digital assets are securities, which are commodities, and who regulates them. That clarity, they argue, would let law enforcement and intelligence agencies track flows more effectively and shut down bad actors faster. The act also reportedly includes provisions to require exchanges to verify customer identities and report suspicious activity, aligning crypto platforms with traditional financial institutions.
What happens next
The Senate Banking Committee has the bill on its agenda this month, but no vote has been scheduled. Opposition has come from some crypto advocacy groups who say the rules are too strict and could stifle innovation. The former officials' endorsement adds pressure on lawmakers to act, especially as the 2026 midterm campaigns heat up. For now, the question is whether the security arguments can break the legislative logjam.
