CLARITY bill gets final Republican proposal before Senate vote

Senate Democrats review Republican final proposal for the CLARITY Act

Before a procedural vote on September 15 that required 60 votes to start debate, Senate Democrats had convened a meeting to evaluate the Republican Party's 635-page final proposal for the CLARITY Act, a legal requirement to promote transparency in U.S. digital assets.

Political game and negotiation progress

According to media reports, Senate Democrats held a meeting before Tuesday's cloture vote. At the time, Republicans were seeking the support of at least seven opposition lawmakers. On Sunday, Republicans released a revised draft of the CLARITY Act, which included 126 changes proposed by Democratic negotiators.

President Trump accepted revised ethics restrictions that cover digital asset holdings by federal officials, judges, lawmakers and their spouses. Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman and Senate Banking Digital Assets Chairman Cynthia Lummis jointly released the proposal. They said in a statement that it was the result of more than a year of negotiations and incorporated 126 substantive changes required by Democrats. A Republican aide told reporters that it was the "last, best and final" Republican plan before Tuesday's vote.

Since the Republican Party has 53 seats in the Senate, if all Republicans vote in favor, at least seven Democrats will need to support the closing debate motion to meet the 60-vote threshold required to start the debate. Currently, these 60 votes are only used to decide whether to start debate and do not directly determine the final passage of the bill.

Ethics: Digital asset restrictions for officials

Government ethics have been a major obstacle in negotiations. Democratic senators have sought to limit the ability of elected officials and their families to influence federal policy while profiting from digital assets. Republican sponsors said President Trump accepted terms based on "the vast majority" of the ethics proposal developed by Senators Thom Tillis and Ruben Gallego. The rules will cover federal elected officials, federal judges and their spouses.

According to reports, the proposal would require regulated officials to strip off certain "significant" financial interests related to cryptocurrencies or place them in blind faith. In addition, the revised execution structure gives a role to state attorneys general. While previous drafts concentrated power within the federal government, the new version allows state officials to join forces with the Justice Department or crypto exchanges to take action if they believe restrictions have not been enforced.

Loomis said Trump voluntarily agreed to the new terms. She claims the text creates one of the strictest ethical codes in American history, but this represents only the assessment of its sponsors and has not yet been recognized by Democratic negotiators. Democrats must now decide whether the revised language will be enough to address their concerns about digital asset companies linked to Trump. Including the requested amendments does not mean that the senator proposing them will support the entire bill.

stablecoin circuit breaker mechanism: Protecting community banks

The final draft gives the finance minister new powers to deal with deposit flows associated with payment stablecoins. The promoters described the clause as a "circuit breaker mechanism" designed to protect community banks by preventing stablecoin products from attracting deposits from insured institutions. Banking groups have argued that stablecoin rewards function like interest-bearing accounts and compete directly with bank deposits, while crypto companies maintain that overly broad restrictions may prevent platforms from offering legitimate customer incentives that do not originate from stablecoin issuers.

The new clause provides for federal intervention when authorities discover evidence of widespread deposit losses. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant will reportedly play a central role in the decision. It was previously reported that a Senate test on September 15 would open debate without approving the bill. If senators agree to move forward, the stablecoin clause could still face amendments.

Developer protection and regulatory authority division

The revised Blockchain Regulatory Definiteness Act language will exempt eligible software developers from federal money transfer registration requirements. Republican sponsors said the text created a civil safe haven for developers who do not control customer funds. However, previous versions explicitly extended protection to criminal cases (including prosecutions under section 1960), but in the new plan, the scope of protection is narrowed to Bank Secrecy Act requirements and civil enforcement. This means that the revised developer language no longer provides the explicit criminal protections included in previous versions.

The Board of Agriculture partially set new restrictions on connected transactions and conflicts of interest by digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers, and clarified that state consumer protection laws continue to apply to activities covered by the measure. Developer protection for the agricultural sector will not create exemptions from the derivatives law, nor will it change the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)'s existing jurisdiction over forecasting markets. The clarifications respond to concerns that software protection may inadvertently touch regulated derivatives activity.

The full proposal would establish a registration path for digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers, and give jurisdiction over the spot digital commodity market to the CFTC, while retaining the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) jurisdiction over securities and investment contracts.

Tuesday's vote is a procedural step only

Senate Majority Leader John Thune is scheduled to speak on H.R. on September 15 at 2:15 p.m. ET. A motion to proceed to motion on Bill 3633 was voted on in closing debate. Under Senate rules, the motion typically requires 60 votes.

If closing arguments are successful, Loomis, Bozeman and Scott plan to introduce the 635-page text as an "alternative amendment" to replace the text currently attached to the legislative carrier passed by the House. Senators can then debate the proposal and consider further amendments. Passage requires another set of procedural and final votes, and any differences from the House version require the House to accept the Senate text or negotiate a common bill.

The House passed its version of the CLARITY Act with a vote of 294-134 in July 2025. The Senate Banking Committee advanced parts of it with a vote of 15-9 in May 2026, when Democratic Senators Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks joined the Republican side. The support of the committee does not guarantee the voting results of the merged plenary session. The current final version includes the Banking Committee Framework, Agriculture Committee Terms, revised Ethics Titles, stablecoin language, and developer protection.

If Tuesday's motion fails, Senate leaders may reconsider or negotiate an alternative version. Senate rules will not automatically return measures to the committee, and a failed closing debate vote will not implement or reject potential regulatory provisions. The first recorded vote is scheduled for 2:15 p.m. Eastern Time. If 60 senators support closing debate, the final Republican text will be introduced as an alternative amendment during Senate deliberations.