This resolution calls to ban public officials and their families from profiting from cryptocurrency ventures to prevent corruption, conflicts of interest, and foreign influence.
Ro Khanna
Representative
CA-17
This resolution calls for banning public officials and their families from using their positions for personal enrichment through cryptocurrency ventures. It seeks to prevent conflicts of interest and foreign influence by restricting politicians from issuing or endorsing digital assets. The bill also mandates that current officials holding digital assets place them in a qualified blind trust. Finally, it requires full disclosure of crypto transactions and establishes penalties for violations.
Here’s the deal: navigating the world of crypto is complicated enough without wondering if the people making the rules are secretly stacking their own digital wallets. This resolution, the Ban Crypto Corruption Resolution, cuts straight to that concern by proposing legislation that would slam the door on public officials using their office to profit from the volatile world of digital assets.
This isn't just about disclosure; it's about a total lockdown. The proposed law would prohibit the President, Vice President, Members of Congress, candidates for office, and their immediate family members from issuing, sponsoring, or endorsing any digital assets—that means no more branded memecoins, stablecoins, or NFTs. Furthermore, any digital assets they currently hold must be placed into a qualified blind trust that remains inaccessible for the entire duration of their service plus two years after they leave office. Think of it as a mandatory five-year-plus time-out for their crypto portfolio. This directly targets the potential for self-enrichment, especially after the resolution detailed allegations of a political family accumulating billions from crypto ventures, including one instance where a new digital currency was launched while the family member held office, reportedly amassing up to $5 billion.
For everyday people, having a 401(k) or a brokerage account is standard, but the rules for high-ranking officials are (or should be) much stricter to prevent conflicts of interest. This bill raises the bar significantly for anyone with crypto holdings. If you’re a candidate with a significant Bitcoin stash, you can’t just hold onto it and vote on crypto regulation; you have to wall it off completely and give up control for years. This is a massive restriction on personal financial freedom, but it’s intended to eliminate even the appearance of using public office for personal gain. The resolution is clear: the goal is to prevent the kind of scenario where a President allegedly uses their power to promote their own ventures, like hosting a private dinner for top memecoin holders, which the resolution notes generated hundreds of millions in purchases.
The proposed legislation also takes aim at foreign influence, which is a major concern when dealing with assets that easily cross borders. It would specifically prohibit foreign investment in any digital assets issued, promoted, or controlled by the covered officials or their families. This is a direct response to the resolution’s claims regarding substantial foreign money flowing into Trump-linked crypto projects, including billions from Abu Dhabi and investments from a Chinese-born crypto billionaire who faces fraud allegations. For the average American citizen, this provision is crucial because it seeks to ensure that U.S. policy isn't being subtly influenced by foreign entities buying up the digital assets of our leaders.
Perhaps the most potent part of this proposal involves the consequences for cheating. The law would mandate the full and timely disclosure of all cryptocurrency transactions made by these officials and their immediate families. More importantly, it establishes both civil and criminal penalties for violations. This is the government saying, “We are serious about this.” If an official or a family member tries to hide a crypto deal, they face jail time, not just a slap on the wrist. Finally, the bill clarifies that any actions taken by these officials that violate these new requirements are considered unofficial acts, essentially stripping them of any legal protection they might try to claim under the guise of their office. While this bill is currently just a resolution expressing support for future legislation, the specific, hard-hitting provisions it lays out show exactly where the line is being drawn on public service and digital finance.