Ripple CEO accuses Dimon of misrepresenting CLARITY Act

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse accused JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon of mischaracterizing the CLARITY Act, saying Dimon portrayed the bill as reducing compliance ahead of a congressional vote.

Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse accused JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon of misrepresenting the CLARITY Act, saying Dimon portrayed the bill as lowering compliance ahead of an upcoming congressional vote.

Garlinghouse argued the legislation would clarify which regulators oversee different types of digital assets and increase legal certainty for firms and investors. He called Dimon’s characterization ‘not true’ and described it as ‘intentional misrepresentation or even negligent to try to make support for the CLARITY Act go away.’

Dimon has publicly opposed the CLARITY Act, warning it could create compliance gaps and raise financial risk. He said, ‘We will fight the CLARITY Act. If we lose, we lose, and we’ll live. But it will be fought.’ Dimon has also supported internal blockchain projects at JPMorgan.

The CLARITY Act passed the House and cleared the Senate Banking Committee. The White House has pushed for a regulatory framework by July 4, 2026. Lawmakers face a condensed calendar before the August recess as they consider market-structure and digital-asset issues.

Garlinghouse suggested large banks have business incentives to resist changes to payments and settlement systems, saying unclear rules have already pushed much digital-asset trading offshore and increased competitive pressure on U.S. markets.

Backers of the bill say clearer definitions and assigned oversight responsibilities would reduce regulatory uncertainty and could encourage more institutional activity in the United States. Opponents contend the legislation could leave oversight gaps or create unintended risks.

For Ripple, a statutory framework could affect its work on liquidity services, artificial-intelligence integrations for payments and its RLUSD stablecoin initiative. The dispute between the two executives has drawn attention to competing views on oversight and competition in payments and settlement as Congress prepares to vote.

Articles by this author