Senators Seek to Stop High Ranking Officials from Monetizing Digital Assets
In a high-profile move garnering national attention, U.S. Senator Adam Schiff (D – Calif.) and a group of other Senators introduced the Curbing Officials’ Income and Nondisclosure (COIN) Act on June 23, 2025. The proposed legislation aims to prohibit any public official or family of an official from issuing, endorsing, or sponsoring any type of cryptocurrency, NFTs, stablecoins, or meme coins. The legislation tries to address the recent concerns about elected leaders benefiting financially from the use of an elected position.
What the COIN Act Proposes
The core of the COIN Act is a strict prohibition on digital asset deals by senior government figures—covering the president, vice-president, members of Congress, high-ranking executive employees, and even special government staff. This ban would begin 180 days before entering office and last until two years after leaving. It also extends to immediate family members. Furthermore, it would require officials to report any digital asset holdings and transactions exceeding $1,000 in annual financial disclosures and in real time.
Significantly, the bill would amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978, expanding conflict of interest restrictions to the crypto sphere. It also calls for quarterly reports from stablecoin issuers to prove no government official is personally benefiting. The Government Accountability Office would be tasked with reviewing these measures within a year.
Why Now? Trump’s $57 Million Crypto Windfall
The recently released financial disclosure of President Trump reveals he profited around $57.3–57.4 million from the token sales connected to World Liberty Financial (WLF), a DeFi platform he supports, is the impetus for urgency in the COIN Act. WLF raised over $550 million in token sales, and sources reveal Trump holds roughly 15.75 billion governance tokens in the platform.
Additionally, WLF’s USD1 stablecoin attracted significant international investment, including a $2 billion influx from an Abu Dhabi backed firm. The company’s deep entanglement with foreign capital and presidential endorsement has prompted worry among ethics watchdogs.
Broader Concerns: Ethics, Bribery, and Influence
Legislators and ethics groups argue political meme coins and crypto arrangements could become a “vehicle for unlimited political bribery,” echoing comments from Ethereum’s Vitalik Buterin. In February, Public Citizen wrote to the Justice Department and the Office of Government Ethics, questioning whether Trump’s crypto gains might violate federal gift laws.
Critics point to a private dinner recently held at Trump’s Washington golf club for 220 top memecoin holders, an event that coincided with a sharp spike in the coin’s value. Senate Democrats, including Schiff, Ben Ray Luján, Lisa Blunt Rochester, Angela Alsobrooks, Catherine Cortez Masto, and Andy Kim, argue this behavior risks eroding public trust.
The Political and Legislative Outlook
While the COIN Act has drawn backing from watchdogs like the Project on Government Oversight and Public Citizen, it faces substantial hurdles in a closely divided Congress. Moreover, any initiative passed by Congress may face President Trump’s veto, who has deflected ethics concerns by placing assets into a trust overseen by his children.
At the same time, lawmakers such as Senator Cynthia Lummis are advancing bipartisan efforts for crypto regulation, including the CLARITY Act and GENIUS Act, which focus on regulatory frameworks rather than ethics.
What’s Next
If approved, the COIN Act would represent a significant shift in federal ethics oversight—extending conflict-of interest limits far beyond traditional financial markets into the digital-asset realm. Its proposed framework, which combines transparency mandates with temporal and relational bans, aims to deter public officials from profiting off digital tokens.
As the legislation moves forward, observers across the political spectrum will be watching closely. The COIN Act not only addresses ethical quandaries under the current administration, but may also serve as a model for how future governments regulate interactions between power and digital wealth.
