Brad Garlinghouse has a message for Jamie Dimon: read the bill.

The Ripple CEO went after JPMorgan Chase’s chief executive on June 11 during an appearance on Fox Business, accusing Dimon of misrepresenting the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act’s anti-money laundering provisions. The accusation came just days after Dimon publicly criticized the legislation, claiming it fails to adequately address AML and Bank Secrecy Act protections.

What Dimon said, and what Garlinghouse says he got wrong

Dimon fired first. In a June 8 interview, the JPMorgan chief took aim at the CLARITY Act, arguing that it doesn’t do enough to protect against money laundering and BSA violations.

“The banks will not accept it that way,” Dimon said of the legislation.

Garlinghouse’s response was pointed. He accused Dimon of either misunderstanding or deliberately mischaracterizing what the bill actually requires. In his telling, the CLARITY Act includes robust compliance frameworks and would actually expand institutional participation in digital assets by providing regulatory certainty that doesn’t currently exist.

He wasn’t the only one pushing back. Senator Cynthia Lummis, a prominent crypto advocate in Congress, suggested Dimon either misread the bill or intended to mislead the public about its contents.

The CLARITY Act, explained

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act is designed to answer one of the most persistent questions in crypto regulation: who’s in charge? The bill would draw clear jurisdictional lines between the SEC and the CFTC, establishing which agency oversees which types of digital assets.

The bill passed the House in 2025 and cleared the Senate Banking Committee on May 14, 2026. But it still faces hurdles in the full Senate, particularly around provisions related to stablecoin yield mechanisms.

Garlinghouse used the moment to highlight Ripple’s own stablecoin ambitions. He noted that Ripple’s RLUSD stablecoin has reached a value of $1.6 billion and pointed to the company’s treasury operations, which he said processed $13 trillion in payments the previous year.

Why the banking lobby is nervous

Dimon’s framing of the issue as an AML concern is strategic. Anti-money laundering is the one regulatory topic where nobody wants to be on the wrong side.

Garlinghouse’s counter-argument is essentially that this framing is a smokescreen. The bill, he contends, includes the compliance requirements that banks and regulators demand, and Dimon’s characterization simply doesn’t match the legislative text.