When Congress discusses how to regulate digital assets, some lawmakers are calling for new ethical rules that prohibit the president from issuing or owning digital assets, such as cryptocurrencies.
This may sound like a sensible safeguard, but single-outing the code for special scrutiny is a mistake. It contradicts how other financial assets will be treated, and it is unlikely to resolve real problems, raising serious constitutional concerns.
Let’s start with the basics. The President, like members of Congress, must already submit annual public financial disclosures based on government law ethics. These forms cover all assets, including workplaces, bonds, real estate, and yes, crypto. If the concern is corruption or financial self-dealing, Congress should strive to fully strengthen and enforce these rules. Prohibiting one asset class while ignoring others creates a loophole rather than a solution.
So why do you make Crypto single? The president has not banned ownership of oil companies while he owns real estate while setting up energy policies and shaping tax policies. Targeting Crypto is more about optics than ethics, simply because it’s new or politically charged. If the goal is to prevent self-richness, limiting crypto holdings makes little sense, but allows broad discretion over other financial assets.
More importantly, the cipher-only ban does not solve a wider problem. The President is currently not subject to major federal conflicts, including 18 USC §208. Congress has long avoided applying these rules to the President for the sake of separation of constitutional powers. Exposing a CEO to criminal liability to participate in policy decisions that could indirectly affect personal finances can constrain governance. Enforcement is also virtually impossible. Like other officials, the president can only be removed by the bluff each.
Romain Costaseca/Hans Lucas via AFP/Getty Images
This brings us to the heart of our constitutional issues. Code-specific ethical laws targeting the president alone will likely face judicial scrutiny. The Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel has repeatedly warned against the application of dispute law to the president, citing both constitutional concerns and a lack of enforcement mechanisms, as well as Democrats and Republican administrations. A narrowly drawn law that singles digital assets while leaving other assets untouched can be considered both comprehensive and politically motivated.
Beyond legal flaws, these proposals risk sending false messages about the cryptography itself. By treating digital assets as their own corruption, Congress promotes the perception that they are inherently questionable or illegal. It’s simply not true. Over 50 million Americans own digital assets. Stablecoins already drives billions of dollars in payments and settlements every day. US leadership in this field is important not only for economic competition, but also for technology freedom and economic inclusion.
It is important to be mindful of regulating codes. However, ethical rules are principled and not reactive. If Congress wants to prevent a presidential conflict, it should do so comprehensively. That means requiring all future presidents to use blind trusts, sell business holdings, and comply with a modernized version of §208. However, these reforms should apply to all assets, not just crypto.
It is not the only financial asset that presents ethical risks and is not uniquely vulnerable to abuse. The same concern applies to stocks, real estate and private companies. Good policies are treated as in similar cases. A targeted ban on one asset class only opens the door to more confusion, weaker enforcement and future exceptions.
Presidential ethics are too important to address in fragments. Crypto deserves smart and even regulation, not scapegoating. And the presidency deserves serious, constitutionally consistent interest dispute rules rather than politically motivated initiatives aimed at one new technology.
Tim Ryan is a senior advisor at the Institute of Progressive Policy.
Kendrick Meek was the US representative for Florida’s 17th Congressional District from 2003 to 2011.
The view expressed in this article is the author himself.
