Coinbase has intensified its defense of the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, arguing that the proposed legislation would strengthen, not undermine, the United States’ national security framework. The exchange’s response comes after Senator Elizabeth Warren warned that the bill could create new avenues for sanctions evasion and weaken oversight of the crypto industry.
In a statement published on X, Coinbase Chief Policy Officer Faryar Shirzad said the absence of clear digital asset regulations poses a far greater risk than the legislation itself.
The argument that the CLARITY Act compromises national security gets it exactly backward. Right now, the lack of clear rules is what leaves our financial system vulnerable because bad actors thrive in the shadows of regulatory uncertainty. This bill drags them into the light.… https://t.co/IbaXpOEQDW
— Faryar Shirzad
(@faryarshirzad) July 11, 2026
According to Shirzad, regulatory uncertainty allows illicit actors to exploit gaps in oversight, while the CLARITY Act would place crypto companies under robust federal compliance requirements.
Shirzad argued that the legislation would require digital asset platforms to comply with many of the same anti-money laundering (AML) and national security obligations already imposed on traditional financial institutions.
He said the bill would strengthen the Treasury Department’s ability to detect and block sanctions evasion, expand resources available to the Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN), and give crypto platforms clearer authority to freeze suspicious transactions when requested by law enforcement.
Rather than creating a regulatory loophole, Shirzad maintained that the legislation would bring crypto firms into a more transparent supervisory framework.
“The argument that the CLARITY Act compromises national security gets it exactly backward.”
He wrote, adding that bad actors benefit most when regulatory expectations remain unclear.
The latest comments were made in response to criticism from Senator Elizabeth Warren, who has repeatedly argued that the current version of the CLARITY Act could weaken U.S. sanctions enforcement.
Earlier this month, Warren described the proposal as a potential “ticket to sanctions evasion,” expressing concerns that parts of the legislation could create compliance gaps that hostile governments, cybercriminal organizations, or illicit financial networks might exploit.
Her objections reflect broader concerns among some lawmakers that the U.S. should prioritize strict financial controls as digital assets become increasingly integrated into the global financial system.
The dispute comes as Congress continues debating several major cryptocurrency bills that could reshape oversight of the industry.
Supporters of the CLARITY Act argue the legislation establishes clear jurisdictional boundaries between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), while introducing comprehensive compliance standards for digital asset intermediaries.
The bill has gained backing from several industry organizations that believe regulatory clarity would encourage innovation while strengthening consumer protections and enforcement capabilities.
Senator Cynthia Lummis has also defended the proposal, rejecting claims that it would weaken financial safeguards. She recently stated that the legislation contains multiple provisions designed to combat illicit finance, including anti-money laundering requirements, sanctions enforcement measures, and reporting obligations for digital asset firms.
Lummis has warned that failure to advance comprehensive crypto legislation during the current congressional session could leave the United States without a clear regulatory framework for several more years.
The discussion surrounding the CLARITY Act reflects a broader debate over how the United States should regulate the rapidly expanding digital asset sector.
The post Coinbase Defends CLARITY Act, Says Bill Strengthens U.S. National Security Rather Than Weakening It appeared first on Blockonomi.
