A legal arrangement in which an official hands assets to an independent trustee who manages them without the owner's knowledge or direction. The standard tool for separating public decisions from private holdings — now written into crypto ethics rules.
The "blind" part is the point: once assets go in, the owner isn't told what's bought, sold, or held, so official decisions can't be steered toward personal gain. Federal ethics law has used qualified blind trusts for decades for stocks and bonds. The July 2026 CLARITY Act text imports the device into crypto — covered officials must divest digital-asset holdings, place them in a blind trust they don't control, or both.
Critics note the fit is awkward for crypto. Public blockchains make holdings visible to anyone with the address, an official who memorized a seed phrase is never fully "blind" to what they own, and the CLARITY text still permits holding digital assets as an investment outside the trust requirement — the loophole opponents of the bill point to first.
IN A SENTENCE
“The bill lets covered officials keep their bitcoin only if it sits in a blind trust — or leaves their balance sheet entirely.”
Imperfectly. A trustee can custody and trade the assets, but on-chain transparency means anyone — including the owner — can watch a known address. True blindness requires the trustee to move assets to addresses the owner never sees.
Is a blind trust the same as divesting?
No. Divesting means selling; a blind trust keeps the exposure but removes the owner's control and visibility. Ethics rules usually offer either — the CLARITY text offers both, or a combination.