The White House is increasing pressure on the Senate to pass the CLARITY Act before lawmakers leave Washington for their August recess.
On July 13, President Donald Trump urged the US Congress to approve the legislation and cast the measure as part of the United States’ competition with China over cryptocurrency and artificial intelligence.
He wrote:
“China, and many other countries, would like to take complete and total control of this major financial ‘happening,’ as well as A.I., where we are now leading, but where they are fighting hard. Don’t let China win on either subject!!!”
Trump’s appeal was part of a broader administration campaign to revive momentum around the CLARITY Act.
Patrick Witt, the administration’s top digital-assets adviser, described the coming days as a “critical week” for the CLARITY Act. He warned that further delays would squander months of legislative work and weaken the bill’s prospects.
Witt also pointed to the July 18 anniversary of the GENIUS Act, the stablecoin law Trump signed in 2025, as evidence of what coordinated congressional action could achieve.
Notably, US federal regulators have also echoed that urgency.
Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) Chairman Mike Selig urged lawmakers to establish clear statutory standards for digital-asset companies. He argued that continued reliance on enforcement actions and laws written before blockchain markets emerged threatens US leadership in cryptocurrency, artificial intelligence and financial technology.
The CLARITY Act would create a federal framework for cryptocurrency trading and issuance. The bill would divide crypto oversight responsibilities between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the CFTC.
The legislation would also build on the stablecoin framework established by the GENIUS Act.
Congress made substantial progress on the proposal earlier in the year, but negotiations have slowed over the past month.
The House passed its version of the legislation last year. The Senate Banking and Agriculture committees later advanced separate proposals covering areas within the jurisdiction of the SEC and CFTC.
Lawmakers are now attempting to combine those measures into a unified Senate package. Negotiations remain unfinished, and no floor vote has been scheduled.
Crypto companies, senior administration officials, and Republican lawmakers are urging the Senate to complete the legislation before Aug. 7, when the chamber is scheduled to begin its summer recess.
Supporters of the bill warn that failing to pass the measure in the coming weeks would leave little time for another attempt before the midterm elections.
Ethics, stablecoin rewards and developer protections remain key obstacles
Despite the administration’s preferred timeline, unresolved disputes over government ethics, stablecoin rewards, and protections for software developers could prevent lawmakers from assembling the bipartisan coalition required for passage.
Democratic negotiators are seeking conflict-of-interest provisions that would limit the ability of presidents, vice presidents, members of Congress and senior federal officials to profit from digital-asset businesses while serving in office.
The debate has intensified because of Trump’s family connections to World Liberty Financial, Trump-branded meme coins and other cryptocurrency ventures.
Trump reported more than $1.4 billion in income from crypto-related ventures in 2025 in his latest annual financial disclosure. That included about $800 million associated with World Liberty Financial and $635 million connected to his meme coin business.
Senator Elizabeth Warren and other Democratic lawmakers have argued that the disclosures strengthen the case for restrictions on officials who hold financial interests in industries affected by government policy.
They contend that Trump’s advocacy for cryptocurrency legislation cannot be considered separately from his family’s commercial exposure to the sector.
However, the White House has rejected accusations that Trump’s business interests have influenced administration policy.
The Senate Banking Committee also rejected an ethics amendment during its May consideration of the bill, but Democrats are expected to raise the issue again before any floor vote.
Negotiators have discussed applying restrictions broadly to senior officials rather than writing provisions aimed specifically at Trump. They have also considered whether state attorneys general should have authority to enforce the rules.
No final agreement had been reached as senators returned to Washington. Without one, several Democrats may be unwilling to support the legislation.
The banking industry is also seeking changes to the framework, particularly its provisions governing stablecoin rewards.
Banks argue that the GENIUS Act’s prohibition on direct stablecoin interest left room for cryptocurrency platforms and their partners to offer rewards that resemble deposit yields.
Community banks say such products could draw deposits from traditional financial institutions, reducing the funding available for mortgages, small-business loans and other forms of local credit.
The Independent Community Bankers of America (ICBA) has launched an advertising campaign opposing what it describes as preferential regulatory treatment for crypto companies.
However, crypto companies argue that the banking industry is seeking to restrict competition. They say lawmakers should distinguish between passive interest payments and rewards earned through transactions, liquidity provision, or customer participation.
Negotiators reached a compromise before the Banking Committee vote in May, but banking groups have continued pressing for stricter language.
Lawmakers are also working to address concerns over protections for software developers.
The proposal would generally prevent developers from being classified as money transmitters when they create or maintain decentralized software but do not control customer funds.
Crypto advocates say developers should not face criminal or regulatory liability merely for publishing code or building noncustodial tools.
Some law-enforcement organizations have argued that an exemption written too broadly could complicate investigations involving money laundering, sanctions evasion and other financial crimes.
However, supporters received a boost when the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives (NOBLE) became the first major national law-enforcement organization to endorse the CLARITY Act.
The organization said the broader regulatory framework would improve investigative visibility and provide authorities with additional resources for combating financial crime.
While this endorsement gives supporters a response to some law-enforcement criticism, it does not resolve objections raised by other groups or lawmakers.
Senate vote count and calendar leave little margin for error
Those unresolved issues leave Senate leaders with little time to assemble the bipartisan coalition required to advance the bill.
The legislation would probably need 60 votes to end debate in the 100-seat chamber.
Before Sen. Lindsey Graham’s death, Republicans held 53 seats, meaning sponsors would have needed at least 7 Democrats to end debate. That was the most favorable scenario for the bill’s backers.
South Carolina Gov. Henry McMaster appointed Darline Graham Nordone to fill the seat on an interim basis.
If Nordone is sworn in before a cloture vote, Republicans would return to 53 seats. Sponsors would then need at least seven votes from the Democratic caucus to reach 60 if every Republican backed the bill. Two Republican defections or absences would raise that requirement to nine.
However, building that coalition remains difficult because only two Democrats, including Sens. Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, supported the CLARITY Act during the Senate Banking Committee’s May markup.
Neither has committed to backing the final package on the floor. Both have said their support will depend on whether negotiators resolve outstanding disputes involving government ethics, consumer protections and illicit finance.
Moreover, the narrowing legislative calendar also compounds the vote problem.
The House is scheduled to leave Washington for its summer recess on July 23, followed by the Senate on Aug. 7.
If negotiators fail to produce a unified text and secure the necessary votes before August, the next opportunity would be a brief September session, which would likely be dominated by the midterm campaigns.
Lawmakers are expected to spend much of October away from Washington before the elections.
A post-election lame-duck session could provide another opening, but its agenda and political dynamics would depend heavily on the November results.