CLARITY bill wins support from second law enforcement agency before Senate vote

Digital Asset Market Clarity Act Gets Public Support from Second Enforcement Agency

In the United States, a Digital Asset Market Clarity Act known as the "Clarity Act" is gaining more attention-a second major enforcement agency has publicly supported the bill on the eve of a key Senate deadline. The Association of Marshals said it had submitted a letter to the Senate Banking Committee in support of the legislation, while urging targeted revisions, particularly on the decentralized financial protection framework and the way responsibilities are defined.

The Federal Marshals Association expressed support on July 10. Previously, the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Officers had taken the lead in expressing its position. Currently, lawmakers are weighing whether the bill can pass Congress before the Senate recess in August. Industry observers view the recess as a critical window for the success of this year's final action.

Core Points

·In a letter to the Senate Banking Committee, the Federal Marshals Association endorsed the Clear Bill as progress in balancing innovation and public safety.

·The association supports the bill's goal of protecting consumers, but hopes to amend the content to narrow the scope of protection related to decentralized finance and clarify the responsible entities in the decentralized system.

·Law enforcement groups have previously expressed concerns that parts of the bill-particularly the provisions on developer liability-could create overly broad exemptions that could hinder investigations.

·Time is running out, and the Senate's August 8 recess is seen as a key milestone in whether the bill can pass this year.

Second support-conditional recognition

In a statement, the Federal Marshals Association described the current version of the Clarity Act as a "meaningful advance", arguing that it both establishes a regulatory framework for digital assets and retains the powers needed to fight crime. The group said legislation should maintain existing capabilities in criminal law enforcement, anti-money laundering, counter-terrorism financing, sanctions enforcement and investigation.

At the same time, the Federal Marshals Association emphasized that lawmakers should improve specific decentralized finance provisions. According to its recommendations, the scope of decentralized financial protection in the bill should be narrowed, clearer accountability mechanisms should be established for participants within the decentralized financial system, and entities should be prevented from circumventing regulation simply by claiming that they are decentralized.

The Association of Federal Marshals also asked Congress to adjust the expression of "specific intent" to make it easier to identify liability, and to clearly confirm that the Clarification Act does not limit existing federal investigative powers. The requirement reflects the bill's core contradiction in previous negotiations: how to protect legitimate innovation while avoiding inadvertently creating difficult legal gaps for prosecutors and investigators.

In a public statement on Monday, Gene King, CEO of the Cryptocurrency Commission, pointed out that the support of the Federal Marshals Association further supports the proposition that the bill can strengthen consumer protection and maintain enforcement effectiveness.

Why law enforcement review is important

The latest letter from the Association of Federal Marshals comes after law enforcement organizations have raised objections to parts of the Clarification Act, especially the provision that provides for developers to be held accountable for abuse by users of decentralized platforms.

Earlier reports pointed out that in June this year, four law enforcement organizations wrote to the White House expressing concerns about Section 604. This clause is designed to protect developers from being held accountable for illegal activities by users on decentralized networks. These organizations believe that the expression could become a broad exemption clause that would make investigations of cryptocurrency-related crimes more complex.

These concerns have attracted attention at the government level. The White House invited law enforcement organizations that opposed the bill's wording to a meeting in late June, indicating that the controversy did not stop at the theoretical level. In July, the U.S. Major County Sheriff's Association switched from opposition to neutrality, reflecting that negotiations and proposed changes are positively influencing the position of law enforcement.

A new letter from the Association of Federal Marshals shows that while support for the Clear Act is growing, law enforcement still wants to resolve some legal uncertainties before the bill is finalized. For investors, traders, and developers, the actual impact is direct: the scope of developer protection and the definition of responsibilities in decentralized finance will affect compliance strategies, product design, and risk management decisions.

Senate Deadline Impact on Prospects

The Federal Marshals Association's statement also highlighted the political urgency surrounding the clear bill. The letter was released less than four weeks before the Senate's expected recess on August 8. Senator Cynthia Loomis warned that the time window for passage of the digital assets bill this year may be limited, and failure to introduce substantive legislation could cede rulemaking power to other jurisdictions and prolong uncertainty for U.S. market participants.

For the cryptocurrency industry, the legislative agenda is not only about timetable, but also about predictability. When bills approach recess, negotiations tend to compress: controversial provisions are more difficult to rewrite deeply, and stakeholders may shift their focus to partial modifications rather than comprehensive adjustments.

This development helps explain why the Federal Marshals Association letter emphasizes targeted adjustments rather than a complete withdrawal of support. The group sent a signal that it can support the overall framework-but at the same time push for clear revisions to reduce friction in future enforcement.

Decentralized financial protection and accountability: remaining points of disagreement

The core of the Federal Marshals Association's appeal is to clarify how the bill treats decentralized systems in practice. Proponents of the bill argue that rules should recognize technical realities and avoid punishing behavior beyond developers 'control. However, law enforcement advocates warn that overly protective statements may inadvertently provide protection to individuals or companies that behave like regulated activities but claim decentralization through marketing or structured statements.

Therefore, the Federal Marshals Association's call for reducing the scope of decentralized financial protection and clarifying responsibilities is not just a fine-tuning of the law. It is directly related to whether investigators can effectively structure cases and whether compliance obligations are consistent with operational control and influence.

Equally important, the Federal Marshals Association emphasizes the "specific intent" expression and clearly retains existing investigative powers. In legislative drafting, the intent requirement can determine what needs to be proved in court. Changes in this regard may change the burden of proof and affect the litigation risk for market participants.

What is unclear-until lawmakers see the ever-changing text-is how Congress will find a balance between encouraging responsible development and preventing evasion of law enforcement in the name of decentralization. Readers should pay attention to whether the upcoming amendment responds to specific questions raised by the Association of Federal Marshals and other law enforcement organizations, or whether the compromise solution leaves the law's enforcement impact unclear.

As the Senate's August recess approaches, the next steps are likely to depend on how quickly the committee can incorporate these required revisions into the final bill text-and whether more groups turn to support or raise new objections as time runs out.