The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, which passed the U.S. House 294-134 in July 2025, remains stalled in the Senate as of April 6, 2026. Four distinct factions — the crypto industry, the banking lobby, Senate Republicans, and Senate Democrats — each hold effective veto power over differ...
"I think we're very close to a deal." — Paul Grewal, Chief Legal Officer, Coinbase
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, which passed the U.S. House 294-134 in July 2025, remains stalled in the Senate as of April 6, 2026. Four distinct factions — the crypto industry, the banking lobby, Senate Republicans, and Senate Democrats — each hold effective veto power over different provisions. The bill's stablecoin yield dispute, which froze progress from January through mid-March, produced a Tillis-Alsobrooks compromise on March 20 that bans passive holding rewards while permitting activity-based incentives. Three unresolved issues remain: DeFi protocol liability, ethics restrictions on government officials profiting from crypto assets, and a potential community bank deregulation attachment. Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-WY) has stated that the Senate Banking Committee will hold its markup in the second half of April, following the Easter recess.
The legislative calendar leaves approximately 18 working weeks before the November 2026 midterm elections effectively close the window. Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) has warned that failure to advance the bill by May could delay digital asset legislation by years. Polymarket priced the probability of the CLARITY Act becoming law in 2026 at 62% as of early April, down from a January peak near 85%. Standard Chartered analysts estimated that the stablecoin yield provision, if enacted without restrictions, could redirect up to $500 billion in U.S. bank deposits toward stablecoin products by 2028 — the figure that drove the banking lobby's intervention.
The CLARITY Act cleared the House on July 17, 2025, with 294 votes in favor and 134 against. The bill then moved to the Senate, where the Agriculture Committee advanced it in a party-line vote in January 2026. The Senate Banking Committee has not yet held its markup.
Senator Lummis confirmed at the DC Blockchain Summit that the Banking Committee plans to take action after the Easter recess, targeting the second half of April for the markup hearing. If the Banking Committee advances the bill, it must be reconciled with the Agriculture Committee's version before proceeding to a full Senate floor vote. The realistic window for floor action is May through June 2026.
The practical deadline is August 2026, when the legislative calendar tightens ahead of midterm elections. The bill requires 60 Senate votes to overcome a filibuster. As of April 6, public vote counts have not been disclosed, though bipartisan support in the House — where 294 members voted yes — suggests the framework has cross-party appeal when yield and ethics disputes are resolved.
Lummis told reporters that stablecoin yield negotiations are "99% resolved" and the digital asset portions of the bill are "in a good place," characterizing remaining friction as political rather than technical.
The CLARITY Act sits at the intersection of four competing interests, each with the ability to block progress:
1. The Crypto Industry — led by firms including Coinbase, Ripple, and Andreessen Horowitz — wants broad market structure clarity, CFTC jurisdiction over spot commodity markets, and the ability to offer stablecoin-based rewards to users. Coinbase CLO Paul Grewal stated on April 1 that the yield deal was "very close" and projected movement toward a markup "hopefully in the next few weeks."
2. The Banking Lobby — anchored by the American Bankers Association (ABA) — opposes any stablecoin yield provision that could function as a shadow savings account. The ABA formally rejected a White House-brokered compromise on March 5, arguing that interest-bearing stablecoins would drain deposits from the banking system. Standard Chartered estimated that an open-ended yield provision could redirect up to $500 billion in deposits to stablecoin products by 2028. Senator Alsobrooks told an ABA summit that the compromise under negotiation would help prevent deposit flight.
3. Senate Republicans — led by Lummis and Tillis — prioritize market structure clarity and CFTC jurisdiction expansion. They want the bill to move quickly and have resisted attaching extraneous provisions that could slow the process.
4. Senate Democrats — including Senators Gillibrand and Booker — have conditioned support on ethics provisions barring senior government officials from personally profiting from crypto assets. This provision is directed at President Trump and administration officials who have launched or invested in digital asset ventures. Senator Gillibrand has called for restrictions that would "sharply limit the ability of senior government officials to profit from digital asset businesses."
The stablecoin yield dispute was the primary obstacle from January through March 2026. The core question: can platforms pay users for holding stablecoins?
On March 20, Senators Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Angela Alsobrooks (D-MD) announced an agreement in principle. The compromise draws a specific line:
The distinction matters economically. A passive yield product competes directly with bank savings accounts. An activity-based reward functions more like credit card points or cashback — tied to transaction volume rather than account balance. The compromise attempts to preserve crypto platform business models while insulating the banking system from direct deposit competition.
The final legislative text implementing this distinction has not been published as of April 6. Grewal noted on April 1 that the gap was "close to closing" and predicted progress within 48 hours, though he did not confirm the language was finalized.
Grewal also addressed the deposit flight thesis directly, stating there has been "no evidence of deposit flight to stablecoins" in existing data.
Three issues remain open beyond stablecoin yield:
DeFi Protocol Liability. Initial drafts suggested that any protocol with a "control person" could be subject to registration requirements. Recent Senate discussions have focused on whether code developers should bear liability for how their open-source software is used. Several Senate Democrats cited illicit finance concerns around DeFi. Lummis has indicated that DeFi negotiations have been "settled," though the specific language has not been confirmed.
Ethics Restrictions. Democrats insist on provisions barring senior government officials from issuing or profiting from digital commodities during public service. The current bill text states that "existing Office of Government Ethics laws and the ethics rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives prohibit any member of Congress or senior executive branch official from issuing a digital commodity during their time in public service." Democrats want stronger, statutory restrictions rather than reliance on existing ethics frameworks. Senator Booker's vote on the Agriculture Committee was withheld specifically over the absence of what he termed "gryfto" rules targeting Trump family crypto conflicts.
Community Bank Deregulation. Some senators have explored attaching community bank deregulation provisions to the bill as a sweetener for banking-aligned votes. This addition risks complicating the bill and slowing negotiations.
The CLARITY Act's most consequential structural change is a clear jurisdictional split between the SEC and CFTC:
| Jurisdiction | Agency | Scope | |---|---|---| | Digital commodities (spot markets) | CFTC | Exclusive jurisdiction over anti-fraud, anti-manipulation enforcement | | Investment contract assets | SEC | Exclusive jurisdiction over issuers, issuance, registration, reporting | | Market intermediaries (exchanges, brokers, custodians) | CFTC (commodities) / SEC (securities) | Registration requirements based on asset classification |
This framework would end years of regulatory ambiguity in which both agencies claimed overlapping authority. The SEC-CFTC Memorandum of Understanding signed on March 11, 2026, established a coordination framework, and the agencies' joint Interpretive Release on March 17 clarified how federal securities laws apply to crypto assets. These administrative actions signal that even without legislation, the agencies are moving toward the jurisdictional lines the CLARITY Act would codify.
The bill creates tailored registration categories for exchanges, brokers, custodians, and other intermediaries. Firms would have a defined path to registration and ongoing compliance rather than operating under legal uncertainty.
The crypto industry's political spending infrastructure is a material factor in the bill's trajectory. Fairshake, the crypto industry's primary super PAC, disclosed a combined 2026 war chest of $193 million as of January 28 — the day before the Senate Agriculture Committee markup. The $74 million in new contributions since July 2025 came from Coinbase ($25 million), Ripple ($25 million), and Andreessen Horowitz ($24 million).
Fairshake operates two affiliate PACs — Defend American Jobs (Republican-oriented) and Protect Progress (Democratic-oriented). In the 2024 cycle, Defend American Jobs spent $40.1 million supporting Bernie Moreno against then-Senate Banking Committee Chairman Sherrod Brown in Ohio. Brown, who had blocked crypto legislation for years, lost. Moreno now sits on the Senate Banking Committee.
Fintech Weekly identified crypto-affiliated contributions to five of the 23 members of the Senate Banking Committee in FEC Schedule A filings for the 2025-2026 cycle. The intersection of campaign finance and legislative action creates a dynamic in which the industry funding the bill's passage is also funding the campaigns of legislators voting on it.
The CLARITY Act must be read alongside the GENIUS Act (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for U.S. Stablecoins), signed into law by President Trump in July 2025. The GENIUS Act established a licensing framework for stablecoin issuers but left gaps that the CLARITY Act aims to address:
Federal regulators must issue implementing regulations for the GENIUS Act no later than July 18, 2026, with the Act taking effect on the earlier of January 18, 2027, or 120 days after implementing regulations are issued. The CLARITY Act's timeline intersects with this rulemaking window, creating potential for coordination or conflict between the two frameworks.
The CLARITY Act represents the most comprehensive attempt at U.S. digital asset market structure legislation to date. Its passage would resolve the SEC-CFTC jurisdictional dispute that has defined crypto regulation since 2017, create registration pathways for market intermediaries, and establish statutory rules for stablecoin yield that close gaps left by the GENIUS Act.
The bill's fate rests on whether four competing factions can reach agreement on ethics, DeFi, and final yield language within the 18 working weeks remaining before midterm politics consume the Senate calendar. The stablecoin yield compromise removed the largest single obstacle, but the remaining disputes — particularly the ethics provisions targeting government officials' crypto holdings — are inherently political rather than technical. Political disputes lack the clean resolution paths that economic compromises offer.
The $193 million in Fairshake's war chest and Polymarket's 62% probability signal that both money and markets expect the bill to pass. Whether that expectation survives the April markup and the subsequent floor vote will determine whether the U.S. gets a crypto regulatory framework in 2026 or waits until 2027 at the earliest.