The Banking Committee of the U.S. Senate voted 15-9 to advance the Clarity Act — a comprehensive bill that would for the first time clearly delineate which crypto assets are regulated by the SEC and which by the CFTC. All 13 Republicans and two Democrats voted in favor: Ruben Gallego from Arizona and Angela Alsobrooks from Maryland.

On paper, this looks like an industry victory. In reality, the vote revealed the main problem that will block the bill at the next stage.

A New Asset Category — and an Old Regulator Problem

The bill introduces the concepts of "digital commodities" and "ancillary assets" — legal categories that have not previously existed in American law. Each comes with separate oversight regimes, distinct from traditional securities. This is exactly what Coinbase, Circle, and Ripple have been pushing for years: not the absence of rules, but predictable ones.

Committee Chair Tim Scott called the current situation a "regulatory gray zone" where "entrepreneurs and investors have faced uncertainty and punitive action instead of clear rules." The White House actively supported the bill during negotiations between banking and crypto groups.

"I've spent the last few months in crypto hell — I hope we get to crypto heaven."

Democratic Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, one of the few Democrats involved in negotiations

Where Bipartisanship Breaks Down

To pass the full Senate, the Clarity Act needs at least 60 votes — meaning substantial Democratic support. But the vast majority of them set a condition: the bill must contain provisions on conflicts of interest for government officials.

The reason is concrete: Trump and his family are connected to several crypto projects, including World Liberty Financial. During the hearing, Democratic Senator Chris Van Hollen proposed an amendment that would ban the president and members of Congress from having business ties to the crypto industry. The amendment was rejected in a 11-13 vote.

Republicans argue that ethics matters are outside the banking committee's jurisdiction and such provisions can be added later during a full Senate session. Democrats don't trust this logic: according to CoinDesk, Senator Kirsten Gillibrand directly stated that without ethical standards, the bill won't pass the full Senate.

The White House's position is that rules should apply "from the president to the last intern," but any language targeting a specific position or person is unacceptable.

Who Else Is Against It — and Why This Isn't a Minor Detail

• The banking industry fears that allowing crypto companies to pay "rewards" to stablecoin holders will divert deposits from traditional banks and reduce lending.
• Law enforcement argues that the bill will make it harder to track illegal financial operations through digital assets.
• AFL-CIO and major labor unions warn that legitimizing crypto threatens financial stability — and thus the retirement accounts of millions of Americans.

Moreover, the Clarity Act in its Senate version still needs to be reconciled with a similar bill previously approved by the Agricultural Committee. A parallel "deadline" looms: the midterm elections in November 2026, after which the legislative calendar resets.

There is a precedent: last year, the GENIUS Act — a stablecoin bill — ultimately garnered 68 Senate votes after Democrats received formulations acceptable to them. If a similar compromise on conflicts of interest is found this time, the Clarity Act has a chance to follow that path. But if the White House blocks any provision limiting Trump's crypto earnings — the bill will stall right where most ambitious reforms do: between committee and the Senate floor.