The effort, described by three people familiar with the talks, has injected a rare note of bipartisanship into an issue that has divided the administration.
The adviser, David Sacks, appointed last year as the White House’s “crypto czar,” is searching for language that would satisfy both Senate Banking Committee Democrats, who have demanded stricter consumer protections, and Trump’s private attorneys, who have raised concerns about provisions that could force the president to divest from his family’s cryptocurrency platform. The bill, known as the Digital Asset Market Structure Act, would for the first time give the Commodity Futures Trading Commission broad authority to regulate digital tokens.
At the heart of the impasse is a disclosure requirement that Democrats insist must apply to all senior executive branch officials, including the president. Trump’s lawyers have argued that such a provision would unconstitutionally target him personally, but Senate aides counter that the language is identical to existing ethics rules for cabinet members. “This is not about singling anyone out,” said a senior Democratic committee staffer who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal negotiations. “It is about basic transparency for a market that touches millions of Americans.”
The negotiations have taken on added urgency as the 2026 midterm elections approach and as a growing number of Republican senators, wary of being painted as soft on crypto fraud, have signaled they would support a compromise. Sacks, a former venture capitalist who has donated to Republican campaigns, has been described by colleagues as a pragmatist who sees the bill as a rare opportunity to codify rules for an industry that has operated in a legal gray area.
Trump’s personal financial stake in the outcome is substantial. His family’s company, Trump Digital Trading, launched a token sale last year that raised more than $100 million, and the president has retained a financial interest in the platform, according to disclosures filed with the Office of Government Ethics. If the bill passes with the disclosure requirements intact, Trump would be forced to either sell those holdings or place them in a blind trust, a step he has resisted.
Democratic Leverage and Republican Reluctance
Senate Democrats have made clear that they will not bring the bill to the floor without the ethics provisions, giving them significant leverage in a chamber where the party holds a narrow majority. Several moderate Republicans have privately expressed frustration with the White House’s position, arguing that the president’s business entanglements are undermining a legislative priority for the crypto industry. “We cannot have a situation where the chief executive is simultaneously the chief regulator of a market he profits from,” said one Republican senator who requested anonymity to discuss the sensitive talks.
Sacks, for his part, has tried to broker a face-saving solution. One proposal under discussion would exempt the president from the disclosure requirement but subject all other senior officials to it, a carve-out that Democrats have so far rejected as unworkable. Another option would delay the effective date of the rule until after Trump leaves office, though legal experts have questioned whether such a provision would survive a court challenge.
The outcome of the negotiations remains uncertain, but the stakes are high for both parties. For Democrats, the bill offers a chance to claim credit for reining in a volatile industry while also checking the president’s personal financial interests. For Trump, signing a crypto bill could burnish his image as a pro-business innovator, but only if it does not force him to untangle his own holdings. The White House declined to comment on the specifics of the talks, with a spokesperson saying only that the administration is “committed to working with Congress on a responsible framework for digital assets.”
