Democratic senators used the committee hearing to press ethics concerns about President Trump’s and his family’s reported crypto holdings and projects, saying the president’s financial interests create the appearance of corruption that could distort markets if a new federal crypto framework is enacted.

Senator Elizabeth Warren said a market‑structure bill should include measures “to shut down the president's crypto corruption.” She told the committee: “If Congress is going to ratify a sweeping crypto regulatory regime, it is critical to shut down the president's crypto corruption. This means prohibiting public officials, including the president of The United States, prohibiting public officials from issuing sponsoring or profiting from crypto tokens.”

Why it matters: Witnesses and Democratic senators argued that a president who holds substantial crypto assets and who controls the power to appoint or remove agency heads would create a conflict between private wealth and public duty, potentially undermining investor confidence and the integrity of regulators.

Richard Painter, professor of law, said that existing criminal conflict laws (18 U.S.C. § 208) apply to executive‑branch officials but not to members of Congress, the president or the vice president, and urged divestment by public officials regulating the sector. Painter said, “A treasury secretary who is regulating cryptocurrency were issuing main coins and investing in a crypto business would commit a felony. But congress has exempted itself from that statute. Congress exempted the president of The United States from that statute and the vice president. That is wrong.”

Senators including Chris Van Hollen and others echoed remarks that regulatory design must include strong anti‑corruption safeguards. Van Hollen and others pointed to media analyses cited at the hearing that attributed a large share of the president’s wealth to crypto holdings and said that a favorable regulatory regime could materially increase the value of those holdings.

Ending: Committee members raised the ethics and conflicts topic as a legislative issue to consider; no specific statutory language was offered at the hearing. Several members said they expect future drafting to address conflicts of interest for public officials as part of market‑structure legislation.