Anthony Scaramucci isn’t often one to mince words. On Thursday, the founder of SkyBridge Capital laid the stalled progress of the CLARITY Act directly at the feet of former President Donald Trump. His reasoning cuts to the core of Washington’s current dysfunction. It isn’t about ideology or policy details, Scaramucci argues. It’s about personal conduct.
In a pointed post on social media platform X, Scaramucci stated that Wall Street analysts are missing the real story. “When he does things like the meme coin and the market manipulation, the Clarity Act stalls,” he wrote. “Because his opposition won’t give him a win on cryptocurrency regulation when he’s behaving like that.“
This isn’t a minor technical delay. The CLARITY Act represents a critical, long-awaited effort to establish clear rules for the digital asset industry. For markets craving stability, its passage is essential. Yet, as Scaramucci sees it, Trump’s launch of his own “Trump” meme coin and related financial activities have poisoned the well. He accuses Trump of having “broken every norm,” suggesting that on crypto, the former president has finally crossed a line that even a divided Congress recognizes.
“The operating system for the next two years,” Scaramucci told me in a follow-up conversation, “is simple: make money and get attention. Policy is a secondary theater, if it’s a consideration at all.” This perspective frames the legislative impasse not as a battle over blockchain technology, but as a reaction to perceived self-dealing. It’s a charge that transforms a policy debate into a question of political accountability.
The data underscores the hurdle. The Senate left for its August recess without bringing the CLARITY Act to a vote. Its path forward remains steep, requiring a supermajority of 60 votes. This means every voting Republican would need to be joined by at least seven Democrats. Prediction markets like Polymarket currently price the odds of the bill becoming law by 2026 at a mere 21%. That’s a staggering figure for legislation with substantial bipartisan backing in concept.
This stall isn’t happening in a vacuum. The Securities and Exchange Commission abruptly canceled a key Friday meeting meant to review crypto regulatory matters. Simultaneously, reports surfaced that the White House is considering its own summit with crypto industry leaders. It creates a confusing picture: one branch of government hits pause while another may be searching for the play button.
From my two decades covering Capitol Hill, this pattern is telling. Major legislation rarely dies from a single blow. It succumbs to a death by a thousand cuts—poisoned politics, competing priorities, and eroded trust. Scaramucci, who served briefly in the Trump White House, is uniquely positioned to diagnose this toxicity. He isn’t criticizing from the sidelines; he’s describing a system he knows from the inside.
“What we’re witnessing,” a senior Democratic aide confided, on condition of anonymity, “is a total breakdown of the basic currency of politics: trust. When one side believes the other’s leader is actively profiting from the market he seeks to regulate, compromise becomes a non-starter.” This sentiment echoes in private conversations with lawmakers on both sides of the aisle though few will say it publicly.
The implications are profound. A stalled CLARITY Act leaves a multi-trillion dollar industry in regulatory limbo. It creates uncertainty for innovators, investors, and consumers. It cedes ground to international competitors who are moving swiftly to establish their own frameworks. In essence, America’s potential leadership in the next digital frontier is being held hostage by a political standoff that has little to do with the merits of the technology itself.
| Implications of the Stalled CLARITY Act |
|---|
| Regulatory limbo for the industry |
| Uncertainty for innovators |
| Uncertainty for investors |
| Uncertainty for consumers |
| Cedes ground to international competitors |
| Holds back America’s leadership potential |
As Washington looks toward a September session, the question isn’t just about counting votes. It’s about whether the political climate can cool enough for substantive work to resume. Scaramucci’s blunt assessment suggests the answer is no so long as the current dynamic persists. The CLARITY Act, and the future it seeks to define, now waits on something far more elusive than a Senate majority: a return to a baseline of political norms that no longer seem to exist.
