@leereiners - Not sure if your post counts as a subtweet, exactly, but I wouldn’t have minded your tagging me. As you know, I’m a firm believer in a robust debate on these important issues, and I have always valued your perspective, even when we disagree – sometime strongly. The fact here is that your premise is foundationally mistaken. It is Judge Rakoff’s decision that was the outlier and, regardless, referring to a handful of federal cases, almost all of which were decided at a motion to dismiss - the most preliminary stage – as “most of crypto’s history” is uncharacteristically misleading on your part. The fact is that the federal case law that exists on this topic remains unsettled, but it had unquestionably been trending away from the position you advocate (for example, you failed to mention Judge Orrick’s key decision in Payward, which affirmatively admonishes the SEC for referring to tokens as “crypto asset securities”). As I wrote about extensively in Ineluctable Modality (which reviewed and indexed every single federal appellate Howey case), courts have consistently taken a flexible view when a purported sale of a product or service appears in economic reality to be more appropriately considered a fundraising scheme subject to the federal securities laws. That’s right on policy and right on law. However, the position you advocate for in your article is not that, nor is it what is contained in the Clarity Act July text. Howey-type fundraising would remain subject to the federal securities laws and places measured obligations on the fundraising party. (It is fair to ask whether those obligations are too measured, but “Reg Crypto” and most of the features you describe were the subject of a multi-year policy discussion and relatively little has changed in that regard since the January 2026 text.) The consistent problem you face, and the fundamental flaw of the position you advocate for, is that most tokens are simply not themselves securities in any cognizable way. That is, unlike any other type of financial instrument recognized as a security, if you examined a given token on its face, assuming it did not provide “disqualifying financial rights”, you would not be able to identify it as a “security”. Critically most tokens lack the fundamental element of a security - a security’s “ineluctable modality“ if you will - an issuer who, if dissolved and no longer in existence, would mean that the security also no longer exists. That is the case for every other security that has ever existed. Why is that so essential? Because a security is not the paper, or token, or other means of conveyance, of rights. The security is the inchoate rights themselves, the *legal relationship* that directly binds a holder to an identifiable issuer. Those rights do not need to be embodied in a formal contract (and as many reading this know, I have disagreed with those suggesting that). An investment scheme subject to the federal securities laws can be created with the wink of an eye, the nudge of an elbow, or any set of actions that reasonably create the four Howey elements. You and I have discussed this and you know that I agree that many fundraising schemes involving tokens fall neatly within the parameters of our federal security laws. The problem arises when two third parties deal in something (like a token) that is not itself a security, but has “security-ness” artificially imputed on it in order to achieve a separate policy objective. The persons or entities exchanging that asset have no way of determining with certainty whether or not they are engaged in regulated transaction. This violates fundamental due process and is also essentially unworkable. (Continues in comments)

Throughout her amazing life, Ann Simpson gave generously of herself to her family, her community, and the people of Wyoming. Alongside Al, she built a remarkable legacy of service. Ann’s legacy will endure through the lives she touched and the communities she helped build, as well as through her love and passion of art. She will be greatly missed, my prayers are with her wonderful family and all who knew and loved her.

Big Bank Beth @SenWarren hates President Trump so much that she’d rather have no rules of the road for the digital asset industry — leaving consumers vulnerable and law enforcement empty-handed — than take the win for consumers. Let’s get the facts straight on her “fact sheet”: 1. She claims the blind trust is a shell game. It’s not. By law (5 U.S.C. §13104(f)(3)(A) and 5 C.F.R. 2634.403), a trustee is barred from disclosing trust holdings back to the official. That’s not a loophole, it’s literally what makes a blind trust blind. Read the law for yourself below. 2. She claims $TRUMP proves the president would create new coins. But $TRUMP launched when President Trump was a private citizen. The ethics ban applies to conduct while serving. You can’t retroactively ban something that happened before the law — or the presidency — existed. That’s how the law in the Soviet Union worked, not America. 3. She acts like Trump’s adult children running WLF is some unprecedented dodge. It’s not. Federal ethics law has never imputed financial interests from adult, independent children — only spouses and minor children. That’s not new to this bill; it’s how conflict-of-interest law has worked for decades. The facts speak for themselves. Don’t fall for Liz’s lies.

Dems finally saying the quiet part out loud: it’s not about protecting consumers from scams or ensuring businesses and jobs stay in America, it’s about hurting Trump by any means necessary — no matter who becomes collateral damage.

This bill literally requires President Trump to divest his digital asset holdings or put them in a blind trust. It's becoming painfully clear some of my Democrat colleagues would rather let consumers lose everything if a crypto exchange fails and posture for the midterms than pass market structure legislation with unprecedented ethics standards covering the President, VP, Congress, and the Federal Judiciary.

Grizzly bears in Greater Yellowstone are a conservation success story — recovered, thriving, and expanding well beyond targets. Yet they're still stuck on the endangered list. Read my new op-ed highlighting @POTUS and @SecretaryBurgum working to allow Wyoming to manage our own wildlife.

.@SenLummis says a no vote on the Clarity Act isn’t a vote against Trump — it’s a vote against American jobs, industry, and innovation: “A no vote isn’t a statement against President Trump, because he’s already given you what you asked for. It’s a vote to keep American consumers inside a system that we already know to be flawed on a theory that the fix wasn’t good enough… It’s a vote to drive American innovation, American jobs, and American oversight of this jurisdiction to Singapore or the UAE or whichever jurisdiction is happy to take what we’re too foolish to accept.”

The status quo in this industry is not working. It’s not working for the digital asset industry or law enforcement or consumers. @SecScottBessent is right. It's time for the Senate to pass the Clarity Act.

I've incorporated hundreds of pages of Democrat priorities in the Clarity Act: 33 Dem-driven edits in Title I alone, 23 new illicit finance sections, 30 more CFTC wins, 3 entirely new titles Dems wanted. That's 100+ compromises — yet still not enough for some. "Perfect" stopped being principled months ago. Now it's just an excuse not to legislate. We have to pass the Clarity Act NOW.

.@SenLummis champions the Clarity Act on the Senate floor: “It is a strong, bipartisan path forward that we have — and it’s the best way for us to give digital assets the certainty they need and ensure the U.S. leads on digital asset innovation... The status quo does not work.”

The Clarity Act is good for the country, good for consumers, and good for the people we represent on both sides of the aisle. After nearly 11 months of giving almost everything asked of us, I genuinely don't know what else my Democrat colleagues need before we act.

The bipartisan work is done. The House has acted. Key stakeholders are on board. Now the Senate must decide: will the new generation of financial tech be built in America or somewhere else? It’s time to bring the CLARITY Act to the Senate floor. Read CTA’s letter below.

I am committed to supporting Congress in advancing the CLARITY Act, including providing technical assistance. American leadership in the digital finance revolution means matching the energy of American innovators with a regulatory framework worthy of them.

The Big Bank Lobby is trying to say that all of Wall Street is opposed to the Clarity Act. That's completely false. Supporting: ✅BlackRock ✅Goldman Sachs ✅Fidelity ✅Franklin Templeton ✅SoFi

Franklin Templeton supports passage of the CLARITY Act. The bill would make clear how crypto is regulated. Investors would know what protections apply. Firms would know which regulators they answer to. It’s time to provide the industry the clarity it needs.