Report: Voting window narrows, US prosecutors seek updates to CLARITY rules

U.S. law-enforcement prosecutors group calls for targeted changes to the CLARITY Act

According to reports this week, U.S. law-enforcement prosecutors group is calling for targeted changes to the Digital Asset Markets Clarification Act. The bill, which aims to comprehensively regulate the structure of the cryptocurrency market, is currently under consideration in the U.S. Senate.

As the Senate is about to enter a one-month recess, these proposed changes mainly focus on the bill's provisions on developer obligations, especially those related to the Blockchain Regulation Definiteness Act (BRCA). White House cryptocurrency adviser Patrick Vitter publicly denied that the administration supported the changes, saying they were far from the administration's position.

Core Points

The prosecutor's group has allegedly urged the White House to adjust the BRCA provisions of the CLARITY Act to include provisions related to developer behavior and criminal liability. White House adviser Patrick Vitter said the proposed changes were "far from being" at variance "with the administration's position and suggested the process was not the result of" fruitful negotiations." Democratic lawmakers have also expressed concerns about the moral rules of the CLARITY bill regarding Trump's cryptocurrency investment, intensifying internal opposition. The Senate will not vote on the bill before its planned summer recess, shortening the window for resolving issues. At the policy level, CLARITY's market structure proposal would shift regulatory responsibilities from the SEC to the CFTC, a move that would transform enforcement and regulatory tools for digital assets.

Prosecutors request narrowing of developer liability clause

It was reported on Tuesday that the U.S. Association of Assistant Prosecutors and the National Association of District Prosecutors have written to the White House requesting changes to specific provisions of the CLARITY Act regarding developers. These groups want adjustments to the BRCA section within the CLARITY framework to ensure that the developer guide does not "create, expand or modify criminal liability under federal law."

For developers and compliance teams, this wording is more than just a semantic issue. If regulatory certainty clauses are interpreted as expanding the scope of federal criminal law, it could affect how teams document releases, build features, manage tokens and smart contracts, and determine which behaviors may be considered legal risks. Conversely, if the goal is to prevent the bill from being interpreted as expanding criminal liability, this would indicate an attempt to narrow the enforcement touchpoints that may arise from the new obligations.

The White House opposes complicating negotiations

White House cryptocurrency adviser Patrick Vitter responded that the proposed changes were inconsistent with the administration's position. He posted on social media that the terms were "far from being" different "from the new government's position and suggested that there were no" fruitful negotiations "behind the letter.

It has also been reported that Senator Catherine Cortez Mastow has been urging the White House to resolve the BRCA issue before a possible vote on the CLARITY bill. This order is critical to the timing of the bill. If lawmakers believe the BRCA provisions are still unresolved, they may resist procedurally pushing the bill-especially if other opposition voices, such as ethical issues, remain active.

Moral controversy and intra-party resistance

The CLARITY bill also faces other resistance from Democrats, with criticism focusing on ethical rules related to Trump's cryptocurrency investments. According to relevant reports, Trump's cryptocurrency positions will be worth approximately US$1.4 billion in 2025.

Earlier reports pointed out that the opposition was related to the bill's moral restrictions on President Trump's cryptocurrency investment. In the broader political environment, ethics clauses often become the focus of partisan discipline: even if opponents agree with parts of the market structural framework, they can use them to unify resistance.

As of Wednesday, Senate Majority Leader John Thune had not scheduled a vote on the bill before the house adjourned, leaving uncertainty as to whether negotiations could resolve ethics disputes and BRCA/developer clause issues before the Senate process became more complex.

Tight time before summer recess

The Senate is scheduled to hold a state working period from August 7 to September 14, making the window for any vote or later compromise very limited. Thun told reporters last week that it was unlikely that the Senate would vote on the bill before its August recess.

A procedural complication mentioned in relevant reports is the difficulty of getting a controversial bill through all steps. One strategist wrote on social media that even if the CLARITY bill were introduced "today," procedural steps-including termination debate, amendment processing, a second termination debate and up to 30 hours of debate-would make completing deliberations before recess extremely difficult unless consensus was obtained to waive the process, which is rare for controversial bills.

This is a key point for readers who follow the legislative process: When the political environment is divided, the Senate process becomes the de facto gatekeeper. Even if there is a willingness to compromise, the timetable can determine whether changes can be completed in time to affect the final text.

Objectives of the CLARITY Act: Division of powers between the SEC and the CFTC

In addition to the ethics and developer clause controversy, the CLARITY Act's core market structure proposal will significantly shift the focus of regulation of digital assets from the SEC to the CFTC. Relevant reports also pointed out that the CFTC currently has fewer tools and resources in law enforcement and supervision than the SEC.

In terms of staffing and leadership, both agencies are considered understaffed, with the CFTC having only one chairman and the SEC having three commissioners-an imbalance that can affect the agency's ability to quickly exercise new powers, issue guidance, or set enforcement priorities.

For market participants, the transition from the SEC to the CFTC is important because it may change the assessment of enforcement risks and the design of compliance systems. Different agencies interpret market behavior, custody, derivatives related activities and token classification through different legal frameworks and enforcement priorities.

This institutional reorganization is also why the BRCA debate could have a major impact. If the developer protection provisions are intended to prevent expanded criminal liability, the final wording of the bill will determine the scope of these boundaries and which regulatory agency's views have more practical weight in developers 'day-to-day decisions.

As the Senate approaches its August recess, the current question is whether lawmakers can reconcile BRCA/developer provisions and ethic-related objections procedurally without derailing the bill. The next concern is whether the White House will be directly involved in discussions on the BRCA clause and whether a vote is really possible before the Senate suspends work and enters the state working period.