Trump agreed to new ethics rules to get a crypto bill across the line. But that might not be enough; AP, September 14, 2026

SEUNG MIN KIM, AP ; Trump agreed to new ethics rules to get a crypto bill across the line. But that might not be enough

"President Donald Trump had been hearing the message loud and clear for weeks about the sweeping cryptocurrency bill being written in the Senate: to get it across the line, he would have to agree to ethics provisions that apply to him, too. 

First, Trump agreed to a measure that would bar him and his wife from issuing the types of meme coins that they swiftly launched as he prepared to return to the White House for a second time. And then another concession came late Sunday, when Republicans said Trump consented to a tougher ethics proposal that several key senators had demanded. 

Now, a pivotal Senate vote on the cryptocurrency bill on Tuesday could mark a watershed moment for the $2.3 trillion market — but it hinges mainly on whether those sign-offs from Trump go far enough. That vote could determine whether Washington cements crypto legitimacy into law or whether a frustrated, deep-pocketed industry could unleash even more campaign cash in the midterm elections...

Presidents aren’t always covered by federal ethics laws

Presidents have often been exempt from federal conflict-of-interest laws, though some other modern presidents voluntarily put assets in blind trusts. While Cabinet officials subject to the laws can recuse themselves or divest holdings to address specific issues under their jurisdiction, it was seen as much more difficult for presidents who oversee the entire government to do the same.

A measure enacted into law last year regulating stablecoins, a type of cryptocurrency, barred members of Congress and their families from profiting off them, but it did not extend to Trump or his family."

Judiciary won’t refer Clarence Thomas, Ketanji Brown Jackson to DOJ over ethics; The Hill, January 3, 2025

ZACH SCHONFELD , The Hill ; Judiciary won’t refer Clarence Thomas, Ketanji Brown Jackson to DOJ over ethics 

"The federal judiciary’s policymaking body will not refer allegations that Supreme Court Justices Clarence Thomas and Ketanji Brown Jackson violated federal ethics laws to the Justice Department.

In identical letters sent Thursday to Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), who requested investigations into Thomas over ProPublica reports about free trips he accepted, the Judicial Conference raised questions about whether it even had the legal authority to make the referrals."

How Federal Ethics Laws Will Apply to a Trump Presidency; New York Times, 11/11/16

Steve Eder, New York Times; How Federal Ethics Laws Will Apply to a Trump Presidency:

"A theme of Mr. Trump’s presidency is likely to be the clash of his duties running the country with the remnants of his decades as a hard-charging businessman. But federal rules and precedent make a couple of things clear.

Mr. Trump will have no immunity from lawsuits involving his corporate ventures, thanks to a Supreme Court ruling involving Paula Jones, one of President Bill Clinton’s accusers. And nothing will stop Mr. Trump’s family from continuing to run its vast international web of businesses. Federal ethics laws and conflict-of-interest statutes that apply to other federal employees and cabinet members do not apply to the president."

Former Bush ethics lawyer backs Clinton, warns on foundation; Politico, 8/31/16

Nick Gass, Politico; Former Bush ethics lawyer backs Clinton, warns on foundation:

"Hillary Clinton is the "only qualified candidate in the race and she should become president," President George W. Bush's former chief White House ethics lawyer wrote in a New York Times op-ed published Wednesday, while calling on the Democratic nominee to do more to assuage the fears and suspicions about the looming presence of the Clinton Foundation as an influence on policy.

"There is little if any evidence that federal ethics laws were broken by Mrs. Clinton or anyone working for her at the State Department in their dealings with the foundation," wrote Richard W. Painter, currently a law professor at the University of Minnesota. "Unfortunately, the foundation is still fuel for Mrs. Clinton’s persistent critics."

Pointing out that Clinton's critics have yet to find proof of any violations of statutes or ethics regulations, Painter acknowledged that there was likely favoritism but concluded that no laws had been broken."