The White House says U.S. Senate Democrats should accept ethics language in the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act after President Donald Trump agreed to potential restrictions on his cryptocurrency business activities, even as Democrats argue the provisions remain too weak.

As time passes, the Clarity Act’s chances of passing in 2026 are becoming more difficult, with a section imposing personal crypto limits on senior government officials still at the center of negotiations. The ethics language, disclosed for the first time this week when a final working draft of the bill circulated, would place an unprecedented constraint on a sitting president. Democrats, however, are objecting strongly to both the way the provision would be enforced and its temporary duration.

Senate Democrats negotiating the legislation had demanded language that would impose unprecedented limits on Trump’s crypto business interests. Trump surprised many observers by agreeing to certain restrictions, but Democrats criticized the version released this week as too flimsy.

Even if Democrats view the language as weak, the president’s concessions would allow federal law to restrict what he may do in the crypto industry, effectively recognizing that limits on his multi-billion-dollar business interests can be an appropriate ethics measure. Republicans and the White House have reacted sharply to Democrats’ rejection of that concession.

“It’s exactly what the Democrats have asked for,” White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt told CoinDesk. Witt said Trump agreed “to subject himself to restrictions on conduct. No other president has done that,” while Democrats are now seeking stronger enforcement powers against him.

“I’m sorry, but you don’t get to hit two home runs with one swing of the bat,” Witt said in an interview with CoinDesk TV.

The dispute over government conflict-of-interest rules had slowed progress on the Clarity Act for months and may now push the bill beyond the period in which it could most easily become law in 2026. The release this week of the final working draft marked the first time ethics language had been openly circulated, prompting a hostile response from many Democrats.

“Donald Trump raked in more than $1.4 billion from cryptocurrency ventures, and this bill does nothing to prevent him from vacuuming up his next $1.4 billion in crypto profits,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren, the Massachusetts Democrat who is the ranking member of her party on the Senate Banking Committee, referring to crypto earnings Trump disclosed for 2025. Warren said the president would “simply ignore the law” as proposed.

The language would temporarily bar senior government officials, including the president, vice president, members of Congress and federal judges, from issuing or sponsoring cryptocurrencies. It would not apply retroactively, and it would not cover every type of crypto-related business activity. As a result, the provision is unlikely to force Trump to abandon some of his most prominent crypto ties, including his ownership stake in World Liberty Financial. He might need to create some legal separation, such as placing certain investments into trusts he cannot directly access.

Negotiators who previously debated whether an ethics section should be included in the bill are now focused on who would enforce the rules. The draft places enforcement with federal law enforcement through the U.S. Department of Justice, which would not be able to bring a criminal lawsuit or fine a violator more than $500,000. Democrats have argued that state attorneys general must also be able to enforce the provision, so enforcement cannot be blocked by Trump’s White House.

Another major limitation is the provision’s end date. It expires at the beginning of 2029, and a future Department of Justice, if operating under a newly Democratic administration, would not be allowed to pursue activity that occurred before its tenure. That means Trump could only be pursued by his own DOJ, for which he has nominated his former personal lawyer as U.S. attorney general.

Democrats contend that a Trump loyalist is unlikely to take an aggressive enforcement stance against the president. Trump has fired officials who investigated him in the past and has directed prosecutions against some of them.

“This is a non-starter for Democrats, who want state attorneys general to be able to enforce the provision, and it’s the area we expect them to focus most heavily on in negotiations over the coming days,” according to an analysis from Beacon Policy Advisors.

Some top crypto lobbyists have privately argued that Democrats are being unrealistic. If lawmakers expected Trump to face severe criminal consequences over more than $1 billion drawn from his crypto interests last year, they were never likely to obtain that result, those lobbyists have argued. They say the strongest likely outcome is the formal and highly unusual ethics rule now aimed at the president’s business interests.

For months, lobbyists have also argued that, regardless of the Clarity Act’s flaws, failing to pass it would leave the U.S. without tailored enforcement tools, consumer safeguards, regulatory clarity or ethics standards for government leaders. That makes the ethics dispute more than a side fight: it is now one of the issues determining whether the broader crypto market-structure package can reach the Senate floor.

Senate Majority Leader John Thune said Thursday it was unlikely the Clarity Act would meet its target of passing before lawmakers leave for the long summer recess. Missing that deadline could significantly reduce the chances that the legislation advances in 2026.

The leaders of three major U.S. crypto advocacy organizations — the Crypto Council for Innovation, the Digital Chamber and the Blockchain Association — sent a letter Friday to Senate leadership urging lawmakers “to prioritize floor consideration so this bipartisan legislative process may move forward.” Witt pushed back against Thune’s assessment, saying he still sees a path for action in the first week of August, the Senate’s final days before the break.

Thune also said Thursday that the Senate needs to determine “where the votes are” on Clarity. The ethics language and several other provisions remain contentious, and the bill does not yet appear to have the 60 affirmative votes required for passage.

Democratic lawmakers including Senator Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, one of two Democrats who voted to approve the bill in committee, have said the legislation “falls short” and “must be strengthened.” Republicans including Senator Bernie Moreno have urged that Democrats’ “lies” be ignored regarding what Moreno called the “most powerful ethics language in US history” in a post on X: https://x.com/berniemoreno/status/2079998231300243690.

The other Democrat who voted for Clarity in committee and served as a lead negotiator on the section limiting government officials reportedly used even harsher language in describing the draft. Some Republicans, including Senator Thom Tillis, have also raised concerns about the language in its current form.

Republican Senator Cynthia Lummis, another lawmaker central to the negotiations, wrote Friday on X that “instead of doing the minimum, President Trump voluntarily agreed to tougher guardrails, meaningful enforcement and greater transparency than the law demanded. That’s leadership that sets a higher standard.” The post is available at https://x.com/SenLummis/status/2080657758395789369.

Lummis also told CoinDesk that the ethics provision would additionally bar crypto platforms from listing assets that violate the conflict-of-interest restrictions, an aspect that crypto industry participants say they are still reviewing.

“This is a historic provision, and it should be recognized for what it is,” Witt told CoinDesk of the still-disputed section. “It’s time to put the politics aside and move this bill forward.”