There’s a saying in China: ‘What’s past cannot be undone, but the future is still within reach.’ Trump has posted memes, his family founded World Liberty Financial, and they’ve indeed made massive profits from the crypto business. These are all facts that have already happened and can’t be erased from history. Now, the Republican Party wants to address this: since the past can’t be changed, let’s patch up the rules and establish a regulatory framework for the future of crypto in America. But Warren’s logic is completely different. As long as Trump’s current crypto interests exist, and as long as there’s potential for future profits, the past isn’t really ‘the past’—it’s an ongoing conflict of interest in the present. So no matter how much the Republicans amend the ethics rules, she can always ask: will this truly stop Trump from making money off crypto? This is the most tangled deadlock of the CLARITY Act. On one side, there’s the argument that 126 amendments have already been made, Trump has accepted most of the ethical restrictions, and the entire U.S. crypto regulatory framework shouldn’t be held back because of one person’s history. On the other side, there’s the belief that if the bill can’t even restrict the current crypto interests of the president and his family, then it’s fundamentally incomplete. The latest version does include stricter restrictions on officials’ financial interests, but Warren and other Democrats still believe there are enforcement loopholes. So now, the debate isn’t about whether to add three more clauses or five. The real divide is: should the U.S. first resolve Trump’s historical baggage before it’s qualified to discuss the future of crypto? As long as Trump’s crypto business remains, this ethical issue will be hard to truly put to rest. Senator Elizabeth Warren’s full speech before the CLARITY Act vote