Former U.S. Defense Secretary Mark Esper urged senators to pass the CLARITY Act, arguing in a Financial Times op-ed that digital asset market structure should be treated as a national security issue as well as a financial regulatory question.
Summary
- Former Defense Secretary Mark Esper called the CLARITY Act a national security bill requiring passage.
- Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture, scheduling an initial procedural vote for September 15.
- Updated bill expands Treasury authority over digital asset transfers tied to foreign money laundering concerns.
- Esper argued clearer U.S. crypto rules could counter North Korean abuse and Chinese payment alternatives.
- Esper currently serves on Coinbase’s Global Advisory Council, a relevant affiliation when assessing his advocacy.
Esper argued that China is building payment infrastructure outside U.S. oversight and that North Korean cyber actors continue exploiting digital assets.
His intervention comes just as the Senate has set the bill’s next procedural step. Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633 before the chamber began its August recess. The Senate Radio TV Correspondents Gallery says the vote is scheduled for 2:15 p.m. ET on Sept. 15, one day after senators return for regular business. It is a vote on whether to advance consideration, not final passage.
Esper frames the CLARITY Act as a security issue
Esper described the legislation as “not merely a financial services bill” but also a “national security bill.” He argued that bringing more digital asset activity under U.S. rules could improve law enforcement visibility, support sanctions enforcement and reduce incentives for crypto businesses to operate through lightly regulated foreign venues. Those are Esper’s policy arguments rather than independent findings about the bill’s eventual effects.
The former defense secretary pointed to North Korea’s Lazarus Group as one example. U.S. Treasury records identify Lazarus as a North Korean state sponsored cyber group and have linked it to major cryptocurrency thefts, including the roughly $620 million Ronin bridge attack. Esper also argued that Chinese payment alternatives could weaken U.S. financial leverage, although that assessment remains his geopolitical argument.
Esper’s industry ties are also relevant context. Coinbase currently lists him on its Global Advisory Council, which advises the exchange’s leadership. He joined the council in 2023 alongside other former national security officials.
Latest bill text gives Treasury new digital asset tools
The Senate’s July 22 merged text gives part of Esper’s argument a direct legislative basis. Section 10303 would amend 31 U.S.C. 5318A, the statute implementing Section 311 of the USA PATRIOT Act, by adding a new special measure covering certain digital asset fund transfers.
Under the proposal, Treasury could prohibit or place conditions on transfers involving foreign jurisdictions, financial institutions or transaction classes found to present a primary money laundering concern connected to digital assets. Treasury describes existing Section 311 authority as a tool for protecting the U.S. financial system from money laundering and terrorist financing threats.
The 616 page draft also contains a dedicated illicit finance title, studies of foreign adversary activity, digital asset law enforcement training and provisions for international cooperation against illicit finance. Senate Banking Chairman Tim Scott has likewise argued that the measure would make it harder for criminals and foreign adversaries to exploit the financial system.
Critics dispute whether the bill strengthens security enough
The national security case remains contested. During the May Senate Banking markup, ranking member Elizabeth Warren argued that the then current draft could instead increase national security risks. She cited concerns over DeFi, illicit finance enforcement and protections for noncontrolling software developers.
The National Sheriffs’ Association raised related objections in a May letter, warning that parts of the earlier proposal could restrict law enforcement’s ability to pursue illicit transfers involving mixers and decentralized systems. Those comments addressed the May draft, while the July version added and reorganized several law enforcement and illicit finance provisions.
The competing arguments mean Esper’s characterization should not be presented as bipartisan consensus. Supporters view clearer rules and expanded Treasury powers as strengthening U.S. security, while critics continue questioning whether exemptions elsewhere in the legislation could weaken enforcement.
Sept. 15 becomes the next CLARITY Act test
The House passed the CLARITY Act 294 to 134 in July 2025. The Senate Banking Committee later advanced its version 15 to 9 in May 2026.
As crypto.news reported in the September vote update, Thune’s cloture filing keeps the legislation moving after senators failed to complete consideration before recess. The Sept. 15 vote is therefore the next measurable test of whether leaders can assemble enough bipartisan support to move into floor debate.
The calendar remains difficult. In Grayscale’s latest assessment, research head Zach Pandl said passage during 2026 now appears unlikely because of the compressed Senate calendar and election year politics. That remains an assessment, not a determination of the bill’s outcome.
Esper’s intervention adds a former defense secretary’s voice to the security argument, but it does not settle the remaining legislative disputes. The Sept. 15 procedural vote will show whether that broader framing helps the CLARITY Act secure enough support to move further through the Senate.
