The Senate will finally pass the Clarity Act, but partisan divides, Trump’s politics and mid-term pressures threaten to push comprehensive crypto regulations to 2027.
Summary
- Senate Banking Chairman Tim Scott set an increase for the Crypto Market Structure Act on January 15, after months of stalled talks.
- Lawmakers remain divided over ethics rules, DeFi and stablecoin yields, as Democrats oppose a Trump win in line with an election year.
- Coinbase and others warn that the US slowdown will cede ground to Europe’s MiCA and UAE regimes, raising the risk of final passage beyond 2026.
The US Senate will vote on comprehensive cryptocurrency legislation next week, with lawmakers remaining divided on key policy issues that could determine the bill’s fate, according to statements from Senate leadership.
Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott announced he will advance the crypto market structure bill on January 15, setting a firm deadline for negotiations that have been stalled for months. The proposal is very similar to the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act that was passed by the House of Representatives in July.
The legislation aims to establish a federal regulatory framework for digital assets in the United States. If approved in committee, the bill will go to the Senate. A failure by the commission would likely end prospects for passage this year, according to observers in Congress.
Crypto accounts continue to rise worldwide
Scott stated that lawmakers have reviewed multiple drafts over the past six months and should be prepared to officially vote even without full agreement, adding that “at some point accountability matters.” However, it remains uncertain whether the bill has enough support to clear the committee or secure the 60 votes needed to overcome a potential filibuster.
Several Democrats and some Republicans have opposed the accelerated timeline, arguing that core issues remain unresolved. Proponents initially targeted passage in mid-2025, then in October and finally in late 2025. All deadlines were missed, reflecting the complexity of the legislation and political considerations as the 2026 midterm elections approach.
Bipartisan aides and White House officials this week examined what Republicans described as their latest offer. A summary of the proposal shows several outstanding issues, including ethics rules regarding conflicts of interest, restrictions on stablecoin yield products, quorum requirements at federal regulators, and provisions affecting decentralized finance.
Decentralized finance has become a controversial topic, with cryptocurrency advocates seeking protection for developers and open source software. Democrats have raised concerns about money laundering, sanctions evasion and the national security risks associated with broad safeguards, according to congressional sources.
The Clarity Act would divide oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and establish tests to determine whether a digital asset qualifies as a security or a commodity.
Industry reactions to Scott’s decision to enforce an increase have been mixed. Some lobbyists have warned that a process without bipartisan consensus could jeopardize the bill’s chances. Others argue that a recorded vote is necessary to avoid a repeat of previous cycles in which House-passed cryptocurrency bills stalled in the Senate.
The political climate creates additional uncertainty. With the midterm elections approaching, Democrats may be reluctant to support legislation tied to President Donald Trump, whose family’s reported involvement in cryptocurrency ventures has raised concerns about conflicts of interest, according to political analysts.
Analysts at TD Cowen warned that the bill faces increasing obstacles as lawmakers enter campaign mode, raising the possibility that final passage could slip to 2027.
Cryptocurrency companies including Coinbase have urged lawmakers to take action, citing Europe’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework and regulatory clarity in jurisdictions such as the United Arab Emirates as evidence that the United States is losing competitiveness. Some observers see the “final offer” as an indication that negotiations are at an impasse rather than a breakthrough, making the upcoming vote a crucial moment for the legislation.
