JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon called Coinbase chief Brian Armstrong "full of shit" on Fox Business. At the center of the CLARITY Act crypto lobbying stands Armstrong's campaign in Washington, which Dimon now attacks openly and sharply.
The CLARITY Act aims to regulate the entire framework for US crypto market structure. The law defines which crypto assets count as securities or commodities, how exchanges are licensed and under what conditions third parties such as Coinbase may offer yields on stablecoin balances. Originally, it was conceived as a follow-up to the GENIUS Act, which President Trump signed in July 2025. In early May 2026, the CLARITY Act first cleared the Senate Banking Committee. However, the vote in the full Senate remains pending. Polymarket currently puts the probability of a signing by the end of 2026 at only 59%.
Dimon calls Armstrong's lobbying campaign "full of shit"
On Fox Business, JPMorgan CEO Jamie Dimon doubled down. He said Armstrong is the only one spending hundreds of millions of dollars in Washington for the cause, and that he was "full of shit." As a result, the attack reads less as an impulsive outburst than as a calculated public position against Armstrong's political influence.
Behind the sharpness, according to the bank chief, lies a regulatory argument on the merits. "If you want to be a bank, become a bank. Then you can do what you want, under banking law," the JPMorgan boss had explained in an earlier interview, drawing the dividing line between licensed institutions and crypto platforms. For Dimon, providers of stablecoin yield must not operate outside the banking supervisory framework if they effectively sell interest-bearing products that work like deposits.
Armstrong responded the same day, though without a verbal reply. On X, the Coinbase CEO instead posted an edited image from the hockey series "Heated Rivalry," depicting him and Dimon as rival lead characters. The visual counter deliberately relied on irony instead of a substantive rebuttal.
https://t.co/T5cMfPPji5 pic.twitter.com/VGwsfF0qCT
— Brian Armstrong (@brian_armstrong) May 29, 2026
Subscribe to our newsletter
The best articles of the week, directly delivered into your mailbox.
CLARITY Act lobbying and the stablecoin business model
In the stablecoin business, Coinbase does not act as an issuer but as a third party for Circle's USDC. The platform offers its customers a yield of 3.5% on USDC balances. Materially, this segment is substantial: in the first quarter of 2026, the company generated stablecoin revenue of USD 305 million, driven by an average of USD 19 billion in USDC holdings on the platform, a record figure. For the full year 2024, stablecoin revenue stood at USD 910 million, up 31% year over year. A ban on third-party yield would therefore strike directly at the core business.
These revenues explain why Armstrong actively helped shape the law. In January 2026, he first withdrew Coinbase's support for the CLARITY Act, arguing that a ban on stablecoin rewards would let banks "ban their competition." Consequently, the Senate postponed the planned vote. Later, on May 4, 2026, senators agreed on a compromise: payments economically or functionally equivalent to interest-bearing bank deposits are banned, while rewards for transactions, payments and DeFi liquidity remain permitted. Afterward, Armstrong signaled support again and pushed for a swift passage with "Mark it up."
The pressure does not come from Congress alone. On February 25, 2026, the OCC additionally published a 376-page proposal that would restrict third-party yield arrangements. Furthermore, the document suggests that existing rewards programs could already violate current law. Thus, Coinbase's business model is under scrutiny on two regulatory fronts at once.
Banking lobby fears deposit outflows in the trillions
Dimon is no lone fighter. In May 2026, the American Bankers Association along with five other banking groups likewise called for a tightening of the stablecoin yield rule in the CLARITY Act. Their central argument comes from the Bank Policy Institute: with a stablecoin market size of USD 4 trillion, bank deposits could fall by 19%. As a result, the debate shifts from a question of competition to the stability of the banking system.
Other estimates paint a similar picture. Citigroup analysts assume that stablecoin holdings could grow to between USD 0.5 and 3.7 trillion by 2030. Consequently, this would displace bank deposits worth USD 182 to 908 billion. The Federal Reserve and the ABA similarly warn that such a capital shift could reduce US lending capacity by up to USD 1.26 trillion. The US Treasury, for its part, classifies the USD 6.6 trillion market for transaction deposits as at risk. These deposits finance a substantial share of US lending, which is why their migration into stablecoins hits banks especially hard.
However, this reading remains contested. In a report from April 2026, the White House by contrast argued that fears over deposit outflows are exaggerated and that the benefit to consumers outweighs them. Thus, the front line runs not only between banks and the crypto industry but also straight through Washington.
CLARITY Act ahead of Senate vote: status and outlook
Legislatively, the CLARITY Act is well advanced but not yet decided. After it cleared the Senate Banking Committee in early May 2026, the vote in the full Senate still remains pending. The GENIUS Act serves as a precedent: it governed the stablecoin framework but left the broader market structure open, which the CLARITY Act is now meant to close. Trump supports the act and, in his own words, wants to codify future-proof rules for the market structure of digital assets. Consequently, he sets a political counterweight against Dimon's opposition.
Market pricing reacts sensitively to the details. Polymarket puts the probability of a signing by the end of 2026 at 59%. Earlier, after the compromise of May 4, 2026, the odds had risen from 46% to 64% before falling back again. This swing shows how strongly individual details of the yield rule move the expected passage. Therefore, Dimon's public attack can ultimately also be read as a signal that the banking lobby still intends to actively influence the pending Senate vote.
