CLARITY Act stalls as Scott criticizes Warren’s team

The CLARITY Act has stalled ahead of a Sept. 15 procedural vote requiring 60 senators, as Senate Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott accused Elizabeth Warren’s team of trying to drive crypto activity from the United States.

SALT Conference footage from the Wyoming Blockchain Symposium showed Scott blaming Warren and her allies for holding up the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act during his Aug. 18 appearance.

“Elizabeth Warren’s team wants to run Bitcoin and crypto out of the country,” Scott said.

Addressing the remaining negotiations, the South Carolina Republican also accused Democrats of repeatedly moving the “goalposts” for political reasons. Scott argued that the bill would not advance unless Republican lawmakers applied direct pressure and forced a Senate vote.

His remarks place Warren, the Banking Committee’s ranking Democrat, at the center of the dispute over the most extensive digital asset market structure proposal considered by Congress. Warren and other Democrats have sought stronger investor safeguards, financial-crime controls and restrictions covering crypto businesses tied to elected officials.

Scott’s criticism came one day before Democratic Sen. Ruben Gallego warned that taking the bill to the floor too quickly could damage bipartisan negotiations. Gallego, one of two Democrats who supported the Banking Committee’s version, said lawmakers still needed to resolve several parts of the proposal before a vote.

CLARITY Act faces a 60-vote Senate test

Senate Majority Leader John Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633 before the Senate began its August recess, according to the Senate Daily Press.

The cloture motion will ripen at 2:15 p.m. on Sept. 15, one day after senators return to regular business. Approval would allow the chamber to begin formally considering the legislation, but it would not constitute final passage.

Senators could still debate the proposal, offer amendments, and vote on the resulting text. Any Senate version that differs from the measure approved by the House would also require further action from the lower chamber before reaching President Donald Trump.

Supporters need at least 60 votes to overcome the Senate’s cloture threshold. Republicans cannot reach that number alone, leaving Scott dependent on Democrats and independents even as he criticizes Warren’s role in the negotiations.

The House passed its version in July 2025 by 294 votes to 134, with 78 Democrats joining Republicans. In May, the Senate Banking Committee advanced its section of the legislation by 15 votes to nine.

Democratic Sens. Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks supported the committee measure. Their votes gave Scott a bipartisan result but fell well short of the Democratic support needed on the Senate floor.

The Sept. 15 proceeding would therefore measure whether negotiators have secured enough support to open debate. As crypto.news previously reported, Solana Policy Institute CEO Miller Whitehouse-Levine placed the bill’s chance of passing before the November midterms at 10%, while prediction markets remained somewhat more optimistic.

Polymarket traders assigned about a 20% probability to the bill becoming law during 2026 as of Aug. 19. Whitehouse-Levine’s estimate covered passage before the midterms, while the Polymarket contract allows lawmakers until Dec. 31.

What the CLARITY Act would change

H.R. 3633 would divide authority over digital assets between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Under the proposal, the CFTC would receive primary authority over spot markets for qualifying digital commodities. The SEC would continue regulating securities and certain investment contracts, while both agencies would receive responsibilities tied to registration, disclosure, and market conduct.

Crypto exchanges, brokers, and dealers covered by the legislation would have to register under new federal rules. The bill also contains provisions addressing customer asset protection, anti-money laundering requirements, and disclosures for digital asset businesses.

Developers of certain non-custodial software could receive protection from being treated as money transmitters solely because they publish or maintain software. Law enforcement groups previously objected to parts of the language, arguing that it could limit investigations involving decentralized finance.

Several organizations later changed their positions after lawmakers revised the relevant provisions. The National Fraternal Order of Police, which represents more than 382,000 members, endorsed the updated language in July after concluding that it preserved authorities used in digital asset investigations.

A separate coalition of police chiefs also backed the revised proposal, while other prosecutors and enforcement organizations continued seeking changes. The disagreement has made the developer provisions one of several issues that senators must manage before securing enough floor votes.

Lawmakers released a 616-page merged draft in late July, combining work completed by the Banking and Agriculture committees. Each committee oversees different parts of the proposed regulatory structure because the SEC falls under Banking jurisdiction and the CFTC falls under Agriculture jurisdiction.

Ethics and stablecoin rewards divide negotiators

Restrictions involving elected officials and their crypto interests remain among the hardest issues for senators to settle.

Democrats have sought rules addressing digital asset ventures connected to the president, senior officials, and their families. Their concerns include Trump-linked crypto businesses and whether a sitting president should be allowed to issue, promote, or profit from digital assets while influencing federal policy.

Republican Sen. Thom Tillis has worked on a bipartisan ethics proposal intended to address some of the objections. Industry executives have also pointed to negotiations with the White House as a possible route to an agreement, but lawmakers had not released a final compromise as of Aug. 20.

Stablecoin rewards have created another divide. Banks have pushed for restrictions preventing crypto platforms from paying yield or rewards on payment stablecoins, warning that such products could draw deposits away from regulated financial institutions.

Crypto companies argue that a sweeping restriction could limit competition and extend beyond the rules Congress adopted for stablecoin issuers. Negotiators have not publicly confirmed final language that satisfies both groups.

Financial-crime controls and the treatment of decentralized protocols also remain under discussion. Warren and aligned Democrats have pressed for stronger measures covering illicit finance and national security, while crypto advocates have warned against applying obligations designed for financial intermediaries to software developers who do not control customer funds.

A July report on the Senate’s delayed vote found that disputes over ethics, DeFi protections and stablecoin rewards persisted even after major law enforcement groups supported revised provisions.

Scott’s criticism meets Democratic resistance

Scott presented the dispute in Wyoming as a choice between passing federal rules and allowing crypto businesses to leave the country. His accusation against Warren’s team went further than earlier Republican appeals for bipartisan cooperation.

Warren has argued that digital asset legislation must contain sufficient consumer protections and prevent public officials from using their positions for personal financial gain. Democrats aligned with her have also questioned whether the current enforcement provisions would adequately cover money laundering and national security risks.

Not every Democrat opposing an immediate vote has rejected market structure legislation. Gallego said on Aug. 19 that rushing the process could weaken the chance of reaching a bipartisan deal, according to a recent report.

Gallego also said the White House had not supplied detailed feedback on bipartisan ethics language sent by Senate negotiators. Along with the ethics dispute, he identified stablecoin rewards and unresolved Agriculture Committee provisions as matters requiring further work before the legislation advances.