Crypto: The memecoin TRUMP enters the decisive battle over the CLARITY Act

The memecoin TRUMP has become a major political obstacle for U.S. crypto regulation. Two senators are calling for an SEC investigation at the precise moment the Senate is trying to save the CLARITY Act before its August recess. The debate is no longer just about the nature of the token; it directly touches on conflicts of interest within the White House.

In brief

• Two senators are demanding an SEC investigation into the memecoin TRUMP.
• Nearly one million wallets are reported to have lost $3.81 billion.
• The case complicates the decisive week for the CLARITY Act in the Senate.

TRUMP's crypto returns to the center of accusations

Elizabeth Warren and Richard Blumenthal are asking the SEC to investigate the presidential memecoin. Their offensive extends the ongoing standoff surrounding the CLARITY Act, whose adoption now depends as much on ethical rules as on technical questions regarding crypto regulation. In their letter to SEC Chairman Paul Atkins, the two senators mention nearly one million crypto wallets that have collectively lost about $3.81 billion since the launch of TRUMP.

They accuse Donald Trump of actively encouraging his supporters to trade the token and request the regulator to verify whether fraud or illegal enrichment has occurred. At this stage, these are political accusations and a request for an investigation, not a judicial conclusion.

TRUMP was launched on January 17, 2025, three days before the presidential inauguration. Donald Trump later promoted it on his X account. According to figures cited by the senators, the president reportedly made $636 million from the operation, while many later buyers of the crypto suffered heavy losses.

The case remains legally complex. The SEC has already indicated that memecoins generally do not constitute financial securities. However, an investigation could examine other issues, such as communications made to investors, the organization of sales, or the potential existence of deceptive practices. Thus, the debate goes beyond the simple classification of the token.

The CLARITY Act transforms into an ethical battle

The timing makes this new offensive particularly sensitive. The Senate is set to suspend its work on Friday, August 7, for its summer recess. Without rapid progress, the CLARITY Act risks slipping into a period dominated by the November elections, where finding a bipartisan compromise will become even more difficult.

Substantively, the text aims to clarify the division of responsibilities between the SEC and the CFTC. It also provides rules for crypto platforms, the protection of client funds, and certain actors in decentralized finance. However, these objectives are now overshadowed by a more direct question: can a president financially participate in a market that he himself helps regulate?

This question has been reinforced after the collapse of crypto tokens linked to Trump. The decline of TRUMP is no longer just the classic story of a speculative asset. It becomes a concrete argument for lawmakers calling for stricter limits on the crypto activities of public officials.

The White House is therefore considering a new ethical compromise. A previous version prohibited high-ranking officials and their spouses from issuing or promoting certain digital assets. However, it did not cover all family members. It also entrusted the enforcement of the rules to the Department of Justice, an option deemed insufficient by several Democrats.

Can crypto regulation survive the Trump case?

The paradox becomes difficult to navigate. The CLARITY Act seeks to provide the crypto sector with predictable rules. But its adoption now depends on guarantees designed around the financial interests of a single man. The memecoin TRUMP acts almost like a living amendment, impossible to remove from the debate.

For the industry, failure would have immediate consequences. Without new legislation, the SEC would continue to develop its own regulatory framework through administrative decisions, exemptions, and interpretations. This method could provide some answers, but it would remain more fragile than a law passed by Congress.

Proponents of the text must therefore choose between speed and credibility. A compromise that is too weak could be presented as a protection granted to the president. Conversely, overly strict rules risk losing the support of the White House and some Republicans.

The decisive battle over the CLARITY Act ultimately concerns not only the SEC, the CFTC, or the platforms. It is about public trust. As long as Washington does not clearly separate the presidential function from private crypto interests, Donald Trump's concessions may remain insufficient. The memecoin TRUMP could then derail a reform awaited by the entire industry.