President Trump has signed new ethics language that would bar federal officials — including himself, the vice president, and members of Congress — from issuing cryptocurrencies. The rule, tied to ongoing CLARITY Act negotiations, puts the Department of Justice in charge of enforcement. It was discussed on an industry call with White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt, and comes as Trump's own financial disclosure shows he's pulled in hundreds of millions from crypto-adjacent businesses.
What the ethics language says
The prohibition covers the president, vice president, and every member of Congress. The DOJ is the sole enforcer — a detail that's already drawing fire. The rule is meant to draw a hard line between holding public office and launching a token. Industry teams on the call with Witt were told to avoid any token sale mechanics that involve federal officials and to firewall education and policy work from issuance.
Alsobrooks pushes back
Senator Angela Alsobrooks didn't mince words. She called the DOJ-only enforcement an 'unserious offer' and said she won't support the CLARITY Act if that provision stays. Her criticism lands as the broader bill is still being hammered out. The ethics language is part of those negotiations, so her opposition could force a rewrite.
Trump's crypto ties
Trump's 2025 public financial disclosure shows $236,250,000 in proceeds from token sales via World Liberty Financial and another $65,625,000 from an equity sale tied to WLF Holdco LLC. The new rule is designed to prevent exactly that kind of overlap — a president or lawmaker personally benefiting from a token they helped greenlight. The timing isn't great for the White House.
What industry should do now
On the call, advisers made it clear: keep token launches away from any federal official. No involvement, no endorsements, no structured sales. The message is to firewall any education or policy engagement from actual issuance. For projects that have been courting Washington connections, this is a hard stop.
The CLARITY Act is still in play, but Alsobrooks' stance means the enforcement provision is far from settled. If she holds firm, the DOJ-only model may not survive.
