Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse pushed back Sunday on the idea that the CLARITY Act represents a watered-down compromise, responding to Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s public reaffirmation of support for the bill.
“This bill isn’t just a compromise, it’s the product of real, substantive trades policymakers made to get here,” Garlinghouse wrote, adding that those trades “weren’t small.” His message to lawmakers was, “The world is watching and voters are watching. Now is the time to vote yes.”
What Bessent Said That Prompted the Response
Bessent’s post, which Garlinghouse was reacting to, reiterated the administration’s view that CLARITY is essential to America winning the global technology race, framing it alongside the GENIUS Act as part of a broader push to build stablecoin infrastructure domestically.
- Bessent said the final draft gives the Treasury Secretary added authority to intervene if stablecoins begin harming community banks through deposit flight
- He called that protection non-negotiable: “If stablecoins cause harm to community banks, I will not hesitate to use these tools to ensure they remain fully protected”
- He tied the bill directly to broader US economic growth over the coming decades
Why “Compromise” Undersells What’s Actually Still Unresolved
Garlinghouse’s framing arrives against a backdrop where the bill’s three remaining points, stablecoin yield, illicit finance, and ethics, are not equally close to resolution. In an interview with Coinpedia, Adrian Wall, Managing Director at the Digital Sovereignty Alliance, broke down where each stands:
- Stablecoin yield: The nearest to settled. Senators Tillis and Alsobrooks reached an agreement in principle barring yield on idle stablecoin holdings while preserving rewards tied to actual payment activity
- Illicit finance: A genuine policy dispute, particularly around whether mixers, tumblers, and parts of DeFi face adequate anti-money-laundering obligations, though Wall called it the kind of issue Congress can typically resolve through definitions and negotiated compliance thresholds
- Ethics: The issue Wall says is most likely to determine whether CLARITY ultimately passes
On ethics specifically, Wall told Coinpedia the dispute centers on whether the bill’s restrictions reach indirect profit, through ownership stakes, licensing deals, revenue-sharing arrangements, or family-controlled entities, and who actually enforces it.
The latest Republican language bars officials and spouses from issuing or sponsoring digital assets, but Democratic critics argue it doesn’t force divestiture from existing crypto holdings and leaves enforcement largely with the Justice Department. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand has explicitly rejected that arrangement, stating she won’t support the bill unless enforcement is taken out of the hands of the president’s own DOJ.
The Sunset Clause Fueling Deeper Distrust
Adding to the tension, the ethics provision itself sunsets at noon on January 20, 2029, the exact moment the current presidential term ends.
- Republicans, including Senator Cynthia Lummis, frame that as Trump voluntarily accepting a personal restriction for the duration of his term, not Congress writing permanent ethics law
- Democrats read the same language as evidence the bill solves for one president rather than establishing a lasting standard
- Critics have raised concerns that, absent a post-government cooling-off period, an officeholder could build relationships and business opportunities while in office and simply monetize them the moment the restriction lapses
