BRCA dispute widens as White House rejects CLARITY language and banks keep opposing bill

Patrick Witt said BRCA language folded into the CLARITY Act does not reflect White House or Treasury views, while banks still oppose the bill despite a ban on interest-bearing stablecoins they had sought.

Summary

The fight over the CLARITY Act has broadened on two fronts. Patrick Witt, executive director of the White House crypto council, said the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act language incorporated into the bill is nowhere close to the position of the White House and U.S. Treasury Department. Separately, Witt said banks continue to oppose the legislation even though it includes a ban on issuing interest-bearing stablecoins that lenders had pushed for. The dispute adds to earlier questions over who backs the BRCA amendment, with previous reporting indicating the conflict was centered more on prosecutors than police and noting that the National Sheriffs Association, which recently opposed the CLARITY Act, did not sign the proposed amendment.

Terms & Concepts
  • Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act: A legislative proposal intended to clarify that certain blockchain participants, including non-custodial software developers, are not treated as money transmitters under U.S. law.
  • interest-bearing stablecoins: Stablecoins that pay holders a yield or interest-like return.
  • money transmitters: Businesses or entities typically regulated for moving funds on behalf of others, often triggering licensing and compliance obligations.