---

Animals at the Watering Hole

Leigh Ann Caldwell: Should the F.C.C. have threatened to take away ABC’s license because of what Jimmy Kimmel said about Charlie Kirk?

Tom Emmer: I think Brendan Carr is doing a great job. When we talk about these late-night shows, they want any excuse they can find, like, Oh, it’s the Trump people. Nobody’s watching them. They can’t sell advertising. There’s a reason why they’re taking them off the air. I guarantee you, if the show we’re talking about was so successful, it may not have mattered.

But should the F.C.C. threaten taking away a broadcast license based on speech?

I think they should make sure people are being honest about what they’re reporting. We don’t need somebody at CBS deciding that they’re going to edit a presidential candidate’s interview because she can’t put a sentence together and she doesn’t make any sense. And we don’t need them editing the other candidates so that it looks like the context is not what was intended. I think that’s very valid, and I think regardless of your political persuasion, you would want that.

The House is going to vote on a short-term government funding extension bill this week, and I assume you’re going to get enough Republicans on board to pass this. But what is the Republicans’ plan if the government shuts down?

Animals at the watering hole tend to look at each other differently as the water recedes. And there’s one of two things they can do: Go after each other, or figure out how to get through it. We’ve been figuring out how to get through it. Mike Johnson’s call is that we’re going to do a seven-week, short-term continuing resolution. There are Republicans and Democrats who are working together on the appropriations phase. They’re very close to closing the first three bills, and they have another three right away that they can also do the same thing. With that in mind, this is the way that we advance the Trump agenda, which is why we’re going to get the votes to pass it.

We know that the goal is to get a full-year funding bill. Now, the rhetoric that’s coming out of the minority leader in the Senate, primarily, is just foolish. This is a clean continuing resolution. They included some things after the tragic assassination last week—they requested an additional $28 million for security of the Supreme Court, another $30 million for security for the executive branch, and then there’s an added $30 million for Congress. The other 70 pages are basically extenders of things that already exist. The shutdown helps no one. And if Chuck Schumer is absolutely crazy enough to follow through on these statements, he’s the one in his party that’s going to be impacted by it.

---

Clarity on Crypto

You’re one of the original supporters and adopters of crypto. What did you see then that made you think this was something to embrace?

Some believe the government needs to provide more of the solutions; others believe that it needs to be coming from the person. And we know that the line is somewhere in between those. As for myself, I fall on the [side of] self-determination, individual decision-making. My philosophy is decentralization, ultimately, of all the central authority and all the central services. I saw back then the opportunity to empower individuals to make decisions that they believe are best for themselves and their families without having to be restricted by intermediaries or others, including the government.

The House passed the Clarity Act, which is now stuck in the Senate. What sort of insight are you getting from them about what, specifically, is holding this up?

The idea that this is stuck is not accurate. I think Republicans and Democrats alike are waking up on the Senate side, and they are diving in. There are champions who want to be heavily involved in all of this. The advantage we have on our side, and the reason they should take Clarity as the base text, is we’ve got five years under the leadership of [former House Financial Services Chairman] Patrick McHenry, and now [current chairman] French Hill. You had Fit 21, which was the original one that went through several iterations until that passed in the last Congress. And now we have the Clarity Act, which is an improvement on that. There’s a ton of time that’s been invested into getting where we’re at with Clarity. Is it perfect? Can it be improved? Absolutely.

The Senate Banking Committee has released their [portion of the bill]; the Ag Committee has not yet. I think the Banking Committee wants to do something by the end of September, and the Ag Committee by the end of October. French Hill has the greatest example: He says the Genius Act without Clarity is like a cellphone without cell towers. There’s two sides to a coin that are necessary. Stablecoins are going to be very important for exporting U.S. dollars all around the globe; but when you talk about domestic use, you’re going to need Clarity. You’re going to need a regulatory framework that people can rely on so they have some certainty and predictability.

So what’s going to change in the Senate bill, and is it acceptable to the House?

I want to be careful by not drawing lines in the sand, because I know that there’s so much talent over in the Senate. In my opinion, they should be relying on all the work we’ve done over the past five years. [The Senate] created something called “ancillary assets,” which is a new term they put in there. Ours has a control-based decentralization test, which is used to determine whether you’re starting with a security, whether you’re a commodity, or whether you’re cash. The work has already been done. I think they should go back to using ours as the base text, rather than confusing it with this vague term.

They improved on the software developer piece. They’ve given more protection to software developers. The regulatory class has been trying to cast a broad net over the entire industry, and if you’re a software developer who does nothing more than create the technological infrastructure that’s going to be used, you shouldn’t be subject to traditional banking laws. 

[They also included] the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, which I think I’ve offered three or four congresses. You have 50 jurisdictions all taking care of their own financial rules and regulations at the state level, and money transmission is a big deal. If you’re a money transmitter, you have to get a license in every one of these jurisdictions, which is totally unreasonable. The Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, much like the improvement the Senate is making with the software developer piece, I think is very necessary.

Do you think they could pass it by the end of the year?

I do. In this administration, anything is possible.

There are some concerns from some Democrats about the conflicts of interest of this administration when it comes to crypto. The president and his family have made between $1 billion to $2 billion on crypto. Is that a problem?

Show me where anything that has been done by the Trump family is illegal. There’s nothing. And by the way, [former S.E.C. Chairman] Gary Gensler is the one who allowed this to exist. The thing that they’re doing with memecoins—Congress at some point, perhaps with the president’s direction once we get the framework passed, will be looking at how we can improve in other areas. But no, I don’t think it’s fair at all for people to attack a family that, frankly, was wealthy before they came into [government]. They’ve been just continuing what they did in their history.

You don’t think that’s having any influence on any decisions that are being made, or that could be made, from a regulatory standpoint?

I have worked very hard to make sure that this is a non-partisan issue. You don’t ever hear me talk about crypto as bipartisan, because when you say bipartisan, you’ve already designated there are two differences of opinion. This is not about Republicans; this is not about Democrats. This is about Americans and what’s best for our country. And I’m grateful that we have a president in office who’s figured this out. This is the number one thing in terms of the golden age of digital assets that he is going to be responsible for creating.

Much like we saw with the delay on the Genius Act, there were some members on the other side of the building that tried to make it political. I think they needed to be reminded that there is a huge group of voters out there from 18 to 40 years old. This is their issue, and they’re tired of politicians making it about us.

Crypto played a big role in the last election. Do you expect that to continue in 2026, and do you think it will help Republicans more in the midterms?

I think it’ll help any elected official at the federal level who is advocating for 21st century finance. I don’t have any empirical evidence, but I think Congress is about 10 years behind Main Street. You have to keep electing people that actually reflect where the mainstream voters are. When it comes to the influence on the financial side of campaigns, I think they’re going to support anyone that is aligned with their issues, and party persuasion is not going to matter.