Key points

  • The revised Senate package would restrict covered federal officials and spouses from issuing digital assets for compensation or retaining certain significant crypto-business interests.
  • Covered interests generally must be divested or placed in a qualified blind trust, while state attorneys general gain a route to enforce parts of the proposal.
  • The compromise may remove one obstacle to debate, but the bill is not law and the expected September 15 procedural vote is not final passage.

A revised U.S. Senate cryptocurrency package adds stricter conflict-of-interest rules and a new enforcement role for state attorneys general, a material change announced shortly before an expected September 15 procedural vote. Republican senators said President Donald Trump accepted key elements of the bipartisan ethics compromise. The agreement narrows a dispute that had threatened the legislation, but it does not guarantee that the bill will advance or become law.

What changed in the ethics section

The updated text defines covered individuals broadly enough to include federal public officials and employees, the president, vice president, members of Congress, certain officials-elect and their spouses. It would bar a covered individual from issuing or sponsoring a digital asset for compensation and from maintaining a significant financial interest in a business whose principal revenue comes from issuing or sponsoring digital assets.

Related reporting: U.S. Senate crypto bill faces pivotal procedural test

For this section, a significant financial interest generally means at least $15,000 in equity in a relevant business, with the threshold adjusted for inflation. Covered holdings would have to be sold or transferred to a qualified blind trust. The bill also requires prompt disclosure to the relevant ethics office, followed by a public notice. Those provisions are designed to separate official decision-making from direct financial exposure to crypto issuance businesses.

State enforcement reaches trading platforms

The revision gives state attorneys general authority to bring civil actions when the state or its residents are harmed by violations of the ethics title. It also lets them seek relief against an intermediary that knowingly facilitates trading in a digital asset issued in breach of the proposed restrictions. The federal attorney general retains separate civil-enforcement authority.

The text pairs those powers with financial consequences. A covered individual who violates the issuance or ownership restrictions could face disgorgement and a civil penalty tied to the transaction or interest, with a $500,000 minimum. An intermediary that knowingly lists a prohibited asset could face a penalty of as much as $250,000 for each violation per day. These are proposed statutory remedies, not current penalties, and they would apply only if the legislation completes the congressional process and is signed.

Why the compromise matters now

Ethics language has been one of several barriers to a bipartisan coalition for the broader market-structure bill. Associated Press reporting said Republican Senators Cynthia Lummis, Tim Scott and John Boozman announced the new agreement after negotiations involving Senator Thom Tillis and Democratic Senator Ruben Gallego. White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt said negotiations had lasted more than a year and urged passage of the bipartisan package.

For exchanges and token issuers, the state-enforcement provision is the most immediate operational change to watch because it could create enforcement exposure beyond the Justice Department. For federal officials with qualifying business stakes, the divestiture and blind-trust language is more consequential than a simple ban on launching a new token. The exact reach would still depend on definitions, final amendments and eventual enforcement decisions.

A procedural vote is not final approval

The expected Tuesday vote concerns whether the Senate proceeds to the legislation, not whether it sends a finished bill to the president. Supporters still need enough senators to clear the procedural hurdle, and the proposal may face additional amendments over ethics, decentralized finance, illicit-finance controls and regulatory jurisdiction. Even a Senate passage would leave differences with the House-approved version to resolve. The new compromise therefore improves the bill's path without settling its outcome.

Sources

AI-generated editorial image; not a photograph of the reported event. Prepared with AI assistance and source verification.