CMR is the leading provider of funding and management support for small to medium-sized businesses and entrepreneurs 

Authored by Micah Zimmerman via BitcoinMagazine.com,

The Senate Banking Committee advanced the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act on a 15–9 vote Thursday, with Sens. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) joining all 13 Republicans to move the sweeping crypto market structure bill to the full Senate.

The Clarity Act is the Senate’s bid to build a federal framework for digital asset trading, stablecoins and intermediaries, splitting oversight between the SEC and CFTC and setting registration, disclosure and compliance rules for exchanges, brokers and custodians. It now advances alongside a related bill from the Senate Agriculture Committee, with the two texts expected to merge before a floor vote.

Chair Tim Scott (R-S.C.) cast the markup as a turning point after years in which crypto firms operated in what he called a “regulatory gray zone” under “outdated rules.” 

He said the bill aims to protect consumers, keep innovation in the United States and “close the doors that criminals, terrorists and hostile regimes have tried to exploit,” after months of cross-party talks that expanded the draft by more than 200 pages.

Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), who leads the committee’s digital assets panel, called the Clarity Act “the hardest piece of legislation” she has worked on across decades in state and federal office. She described it as a “case of first impression” that tries to fit new asset types and software into a regulatory code built for earlier markets.

BREAKING: ???? Senate Banking Committee PASSES the Clarity Act in 15-9 vote.

The bill now goes to the full Senate. pic.twitter.com/TCs6T283y2

— Bitcoin Magazine (@BitcoinMagazine) May 14, 2026

Warren’s camp: “industry-written” and “not ready”

Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) led the opposition, arguing the committee should focus on groceries, health costs and credit card rates, not “a bill written by the crypto industry for the crypto industry.” 

Warren warned that the draft “blows a hole” in securities law that has protected investors since 1929, preempts state anti-fraud rules and allows banks to load up on volatile crypto exposure in ways she linked to pre-2008 practices. 

She said the bill “declares open season on defrauding American consumers who use crypto,” and accused Republicans of advancing a framework that helps “the President of the United States’ crypto grift.

Sen. Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) tied his no vote to ethics concerns, calling President Donald Trump’s digital asset business ties “pure corruption” and faulting Republicans for refusing enforceable conflict-of-interest rules for all elected officials, including the president and vice president.

Illicit finance, mixers and stablecoins

National security concerns drove a series of Democratic amendments that Republicans rejected in 11–13 votes. Warren proposed stronger sanction tools against crypto mixers and DeFi services, citing Treasury’s 2022 designation of Tornado Cash and warning that the bill does not isolate mixers in statute. 

Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) pressed her on why new anti-money-laundering sections do not already cover those services, then joined Republicans to defeat the proposal.

Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.) described how Iranian actors use stablecoins to buy drone components, import sensitive goods and collect tolls from tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. He said the Treasury still must “go hat in hand” to issuers such as Tether for voluntary cooperation, and sought explicit power for regulators to block foreign illicit stablecoin flows; his amendment failed on the same party-line split.

Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) pointed to estimates that more than 150 billion dollars in digital assets flowed through wallets tied to illicit activity last year and highlighted a large North Korean exchange hack where DeFi services helped launder funds. 

His proposal to make it unlawful to release a DeFi protocol with the stated purpose of enabling money laundering, sanctions evasion or terror finance also fell in an 11–13 vote, after Republicans argued that existing criminal statutes already reach that conduct.

Republicans, led by Lummis and Sen. Bernie Moreno (R-Ohio), answered that Titles II and III of the bill already tie digital asset intermediaries into the Bank Secrecy Act, expand Treasury’s “special measures” authority and bring kiosks, brokers and exchanges into clearer federal oversight than the House version.

President Trump, World Liberty and failed ethics amendments

Ethics provisions tied to Trump’s business ties to World Liberty Financial and other crypto ventures produced some of the sharpest exchanges. Van Hollen offered an amendment to bar the president, vice president and members of Congress from business ties to crypto firms and to require more disclosure, saying it was needed because “the president and members of his family” had been involved in “corrupt crypto ventures and various crypto scams.”

Moreno said the measure belonged in the Judiciary Committee because it carried criminal penalties and defended Trump as “a good man,” accusing Van Hollen of declaring criminal conduct without a court record. The amendment failed 11–13.

Warren tried to force banking regulators to release confidential supervisory records related to Jeffrey Epstein, arguing Epstein had backed early crypto investments and that exam files could reveal what banks and supervisors knew as he moved funds through major institutions. Lummis answered that confidential supervisory material is outside a market structure bill’s scope, and that amendment also failed, even after Kennedy said he would have supported it without “co-conspirator” language.

DeFi safe harbor deal exposes Democratic split

One of the most consequential votes came on Lummis Amendment 122, a technical package negotiated with Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) that refines when a DeFi protocol counts as controlled by a small group and interacts with the bill’s core safe harbors. 

Warren argued the amendment embeds “a narrow test” for which entities count as crypto intermediaries and imports a Section 604 “loophole” that shields decentralized services from basic anti-money-laundering rules, saying that “it doesn’t matter if you have rules if nobody has to follow them.”

After a short technical fix to strike two lines, the committee adopted the amendment 18–6, with Warner, Cortez Masto and Alsobrooks joining Republicans. That vote marked a clear split: Warren, Reed and Van Hollen opposed the compromise, while a “crypto Democrat” bloc accepted the DeFi framework as a basis to refine before floor action.

Process fight over which amendments get heard

The markup also turned into a test of Scott’s control over the amendment list. Before the hearing, he ruled more than a dozen proposals out of order on drafting and filing grounds, including a National Sheriffs Association-backed fix from Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D-Nev.) on decentralized platform enforcement and a community-bank-supported stablecoin-yield tweak from Reed and Sen. Tina Smith (D-Minn.).

Later, seeking a bipartisan outcome, Scott reinstated several amendments, including Lummis 122, after Democrats such as Warner and Gallego said committee votes on those compromises would make support easier. Warren objected that he was reviving a subset of Republican-side language while leaving law enforcement and community-bank proposals sidelined. 

Van Hollen noted that some of his own properly drafted amendments never reached a vote, even as previously disqualified Lummis text passed 18–6. 

Scott replied that he and Warren had agreed to cap amendments from each side, and that within that cap he was using discretion to serve Democrats who wanted a bipartisan result.

Gallego and Alsobrooks give Clarity Act its bipartisan spine

Through the day, Republicans accepted targeted changes that industry and moderates backed, including Sen. Mike Rounds’ AI sandbox and Sen. Dave McCormick’s portfolio-margin language, both adopted with Democratic support. They rejected every Democratic attempt to extend sanctions tools, bar bailouts, tighten DeFi liability or write ethics rules into the bill.

By the final vote, the Democratic side had split into clear camps. Warren, Warnock, Van Hollen, Smith and Reed built a record that presents Clarity as an industry-driven framework that weakens enforcement and leaves presidential conflicts untouched. Warner helped shape key language but kept leverage for later stages. 

Gallego and Alsobrooks supplied the decisive Democratic votes that turned a partisan project into a 15–9 bipartisan committee win, while both signaled that support on the floor will depend on further movement on ethics and enforcement as the bill heads toward merger with the Agriculture Committee’s version and a 60-vote test before the full Senate.

Authored by Kimberly Hayek via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The FBI on Sunday published an early glimpse at annual crime data, releasing preliminary 2025 data alongside first-quarter 2026 numbers that together show that violent crime has dropped sharply.

The figures, typically released at the end of summer, marked the first time the bureau furnished a preview of annual crime tallies before the end of the following spring. 

The first-quarter 2026 numbers, drawn from 67 major law enforcement agencies, showed homicides fell 17.7 percent against the same period last year, robberies fell 20.4 percent, reported rapes declined 7.2 percent, and aggravated assaults dropped 4.8 percent. Declines appeared in every region of the country, according to the bureau. 

Among cities registering the steepest homicide reductions from January through March are Washington, D.C., down 64.7 percent; Philadelphia, 54 percent; San Diego, 50 percent; Houston, 36.4 percent; Memphis, Tennessee, 34.4 percent; New York City, 31.7 percent; and Los Angeles, 23 percent.

The 2025 full-year figures anchoring the release were equally stark.

The FBI recorded a 20 percent drop in the national murder rate, the largest single-year decrease ever captured in FBI data, alongside a 31 percent rise in fentanyl seizures, rescue of more than 6,000 child victims, and a 290 percent increase in gang disruptions. FBI Director Kash Patel told The Epoch Times that the achievements were the result of a “full-scale reset of the FBI—operationally, culturally, and fiscally.”

In 2025, FBI arrests climbed 197 percent, from 34,000 to 67,000; 1,800 gangs and criminal enterprises were dismantled—a 210 percent increase—and more than 30,000 were arrested for violent crimes, nearly double from 2024.

The U.S. homicide rate in 2025 fell 21 percent from 2024—44 percent below the 2021 pandemic peak, according to a report by the Council on Criminal Justice, which analyzed data from 40 large cities. The group projected that when the FBI finalized its annual report, the national homicide rate would stand at roughly 4.0 per 100,000 residents, the lowest recorded in law enforcement or public health data stretching back to 1900.

Patel hinted at the historic nature of the data for months.

“We are on track to have the lowest murder rate in modern American history. The lowest murder rate by double-digit percentages,” he told the Senate Judiciary Committee in September 2025.  He attributed the shift in large part to the FBI’s Operation Summer Heat, noting that in New Orleans and Nashville alone, violent crime arrests climbed an average of 250 percent each.

A month later, Patel told The Epoch Times’s Jan Jekielek that homicides had fallen by double digits nationwide. 

“I’m happy to announce, finally, that one of the big targets we had for this year, obviously, was to reduce the murder rate across America,” he said.

In October 2025, Trump and Patel announced that Operation Summer Heat resulted in more than 8,700 arrests and a 20 percent drop in violent crime in targeted cities. Trump, in a Truth Social post days later, said that since he was inaugurated, 28,000 violent criminals have been arrested, more than 6,000 illegal firearms were removed from the street, 5,000 children have been rescued, and 2,000 criminal enterprises have been disrupted—calling them “historic results.”

Authored by Janice Hisle via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

A “culture of fraud” infected Minnesota state agencies, resulting in more than $9 billion in taxpayers’ money squandered, a new legislative report says.

“We finally pulled the curtain back—and the public is grateful,” state Rep. Kristin Robbins, chair of the Minnesota House Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Committee, said May 13 during a session that summarized 16 months of investigative work.

Many fraudsters “came to believe that fraud was tolerated and paid in a big way,” according to a report that Robbins released at the meeting. The report summarizes the committee’s attempts to dissect how state agencies became so mired in fraud.

Testimony from dozens of witnesses, including state employees and whistleblowers, demonstrated that Gov. Tim Walz’s administration neglected “basic due diligence” to protect taxpayers’ money, and instead “prioritized getting as much money out the door as possible” via government-benefits programs, the report says.

The administration also allegedly punished whistleblowers and “ignored and consciously downplayed shocking levels of fraud” in more than a dozen Medicaid-funded programs, such as autism services, medical transportation, and adult day care, according to the document.

“All of these failures have created opportunities for serial fraudsters to steal billions from Minnesota taxpayers across multiple programs for years,” the report says, estimating $300 million in federal meals fraud and $9 billion in Medicaid fraud. Those numbers exclude “potential hundreds of millions more in fraud in child care” and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, the report notes.

The governor’s office did not respond to The Epoch Times’ request for comment by publication time.

Walz has repeatedly defended his track record on tackling fraud, including in a May 6 news release, stating: “We’ve made significant progress to strengthen programs and root out fraud. Today, we’re building on our success by putting an even stronger structure in place; adding leadership, improving oversight, and ensuring these programs are managed with the discipline and accountability Minnesotans expect.”

Robbins said accountability is lacking because no one in state government has been fired for failures, nor even for falsifying records—a finding that the Office of Legislative Auditor, a state watchdog, released early this year.

The new report from Robbins’s committee was released May 13, the same day that Vice President JD Vance, who heads a new anti-fraud task force, announced that the federal government was withholding $1.4 billion from home health and hospice operations suspected of fraud across the nation. So far this year, fraud concerns prompted federal officials to withhold $350 million from Minnesota’s Medicaid program.

Five Republicans including Robbins prepared the report. The committee’s trio of Democrats were invited to prepare their own version, mirroring a practice used in Congress.

Two Democratic committee members at the meeting, Reps. Dave Pinto and Emma Greenman, did not say whether they would take that step. Both disputed what they called “partisan” characterizations in the report; Pinto and Greenman abstained from voting on the GOP-authored report. All four Republicans who were present voted to accept it.

Republican Rep. Isaac Schultz noted that despite allegations of partisanship, he sees signs of cooperation between the two parties. Just two weeks ago, the legislature approved “four great fraud-prevention bills on a bipartisan basis that were supported by members of this committee,” Schultz said, adding that one such bill called for “stopping grants going to convicted fraudsters.”

Remedies Proposed

The 84-page report contains numerous recommended changes in agency procedures and culture, and highlights broken internal processes.

For example, a law requires the Department of Human Services to annually review whether Medicaid beneficiaries are indeed eligible. The agency regularly skipped those verifications, and had conducted none since 2020, the report says, possibly costing “tens of millions of dollars.”

Under pressure from the committee and the public, the department conducted a review on March 20. It found “31,529 ineligible Minnesotans were receiving benefits,” who were then removed from the rolls, the report says.

Agency bureaucrats, who “viewed their role as supportive consultants rather than providing actual oversight” as they doled out taxpayers’ money, must instead use their authority to withhold payments and take other action, the report says.

The report also calls for agencies to log whistleblower complaints and hotline reports, then report those, along with actions taken, to lawmakers.

Fraud concerns and suspicious billing trends need to be tracked and reported too, the report says.

Another major recommended change: “Require electronic attendance records for child care, adult day care, sober homes, autism centers ... and other billable services ... before payments can be made.”

Committee’s Value Debated

The committee—the first of its kind in state history—began working in January 2025, nearly a year before Minnesota’s massive fraud scandals gained widespread national attention and sparked multiple federal probes.

As Robbins opened what could be the committee’s final meeting, she encouraged state lawmakers to re-establish the committee when the legislature reconvenes next year.

“The work we’ve done has hopefully carved a path for the next legislature in the next biennium to continue this important work,” she said, calling it “historic.”

The Republican lawmaker withdrew her bid for the governorship May 1, saying she would fight for improvements “from the outside” after her current term as a state representative expires in January 2027.

“It’s going to take many years, unfortunately, to undo the damage that has been done to taxpayers and vulnerable residents,” Robbins said. “But we must continue to expose the fraud, to strengthen internal controls and to make sure that fraudsters and agency officials are held accountable.”

Democrats Pinto and Greenman said the committee should have proposed legislation that could spark meaningful changes.

“Fighting fraud is urgent. Solutions were needed now,” Pinto said.

Robbins and other Republicans responded that the committee’s role was investigative, not legislative, and that the committee’s findings did inspire proposed laws.

Greenman said the document contains “misleading” information, and “no Democratic leader [is] left undisparaged” in the report. She defended the work of Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison in prosecuting fraud cases, and said the report fails to give him due credit.

Authored by Troy Myers via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

The Department of Justice (DOJ) filed a complaint on May 13 against the D.C. Bar, alleging it has acted as a “partisan arm of leftist causes.”

According to the DOJ, the agency seeks to advance President Donald Trump’s directives to end the weaponization of the federal government while nullifying the D.C. Bar’s prosecution of former Assistant Attorney General Jeff Clark.

D.C. Disciplinary Counsel Hamilton P. Fox III, the D.C. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, the D.C. Court of Appeals, the District of Columbia itself, the D.C. Bar, and others are named as defendants and accused of unlawfully prosecuting Clark based on his internal deliberations of potential fraud in the 2020 presidential election.

The Epoch Times reached out to the D.C. Bar for comment and was referred to the D.C. Board on Professional Responsibility, which did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

Clark wrote a draft letter for his litigation on potential fraud, which was never issued, and the D.C. Court of Appeals’ disciplinary authorities punished him over it, according to the complaint.

The D.C. Bar and others’ investigation and discipline of Clark were improperly based on “their disagreement with Mr. Clark’s performance of his discretionary Executive Branch duties, particularly with respect to a predecisional and deliberative document about potential election fraud in Georgia, which remains the subject of criminal investigation and civil litigation years later,” the complaint said.

Allowing proceedings against Clark to continue would mean state bar authorities can exert control over the executive branch, the DOJ said, adding, “That is not the law.”

The DOJ cited the supremacy clause of the U.S. Constitution, or preemption, as a cause for dismissing proceedings and discipline against Clark. Preemption, the DOJ said, prevents states and the District of Columbia from regulating or interfering with federal officials performing their duties.

In the complaint, the DOJ also argued that a 2024 Supreme Court decision, Trump v. United States, offers protection for Clark.

In that landmark ruling, the justices said the president is entitled to absolute immunity “for conduct within his exclusive sphere of authority” because the president should have the “maximum ability to deal fearlessly and impartially with the duties of his office.”

The president would enjoy little immunity if federal attorneys could be targeted and disciplined for internal deliberations, the complaint said.

In the news release, the DOJ said this filing furthers Trump’s executive order, “Ending the Weaponization of the Federal Government,” and his presidential memorandum, “Preventing Abuses of the Legal System and the Federal Courts.”

“The D.C. Bar will no longer be permitted to probe sensitive Executive Branch deliberations and target Executive Branch officials with whom they happen to politically disagree,” Associate Attorney General Stanley Woodward said. “Federal attorneys will once again be free to share their candid legal advice with their bosses and colleagues.”

In a similar case to Clark’s, the DOJ said it filed a statement in support of former interim U.S. Attorney Ed Martin, who is looking to have the D.C. Bar’s prosecution of him taken up in a neutral federal court.

The DOJ noted in its news release that three former attorneys general have acknowledged that the D.C. Bar’s push to discipline federal attorneys “for making recommendations, factual assertions, and providing legal advice during confidential internal agency deliberations on law enforcement and sensitive public policy” is “improper and constitutionally impermissible.”

“President Trump promised to put an end to the weaponization of the legal process, and today’s lawsuit against the D.C. Bar makes good on that promise,” Woodward said.