The Senate Banking Committee advanced the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act on a 15–9 vote Thursday, with Sens. Ruben Gallego (D‑Ariz.) and Angela Alsobrooks (D‑Md.) joining all 13 Republicans to move the sweeping crypto market structure bill to the full Senate.
The Clarity Act is the Senate’s bid to build a federal framework for digital asset trading, stablecoins and intermediaries, splitting oversight between the SEC and CFTC and setting registration, disclosure and compliance rules for exchanges, brokers and custodians. It now advances alongside a related bill from the Senate Agriculture Committee, with the two texts expected to merge before a floor vote.
Chair Tim Scott (R‑S.C.) cast the markup as a turning point after years in which crypto firms operated in what he called a “regulatory gray zone” under “outdated rules.”
He said the bill aims to protect consumers, keep innovation in the United States and “close the doors that criminals, terrorists and hostile regimes have tried to exploit,” after months of cross‑party talks that expanded the draft by more than 200 pages.
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R‑Wyo.), who leads the committee’s digital assets panel, called the Clarity Act “the hardest piece of legislation” she has worked on across decades in state and federal office. She described it as a “case of first impression” that tries to fit new asset types and software into a regulatory code built for earlier markets.
Warren’s camp: “industry‑written” and “not ready”
Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren (D‑Mass.) led the opposition, arguing the committee should focus on groceries, health costs and credit card rates, not “a bill written by the crypto industry for the crypto industry.”
Warren warned that the draft “blows a hole” in securities law that has protected investors since 1929, preempts state anti‑fraud rules and allows banks to load up on volatile crypto exposure in ways she linked to pre‑2008 practices.
She said the bill “declares open season on defrauding American consumers who use crypto,” and accused Republicans of advancing a framework that helps “the President of the United States’ crypto grift.
Sen. Raphael Warnock (D‑Ga.) tied his no vote to ethics concerns, calling President Donald Trump’s digital asset business ties “pure corruption” and faulting Republicans for refusing enforceable conflict‑of‑interest rules for all elected officials, including the president and vice president.
Illicit finance, mixers and stablecoins
National security concerns drove a series of Democratic amendments that Republicans rejected in 11–13 votes. Warren proposed stronger sanction tools against crypto mixers and DeFi services, citing Treasury’s 2022 designation of Tornado Cash and warning that the bill does not isolate mixers in statute.
Sen. John Kennedy (R‑La.) pressed her on why new anti‑money‑laundering sections do not already cover those services, then joined Republicans to defeat the proposal.
Sen. Jack Reed (D‑R.I.) described how Iranian actors use stablecoins to buy drone components, import sensitive goods and collect tolls from tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. He said the Treasury still must “go hat in hand” to issuers such as Tether for voluntary cooperation, and sought explicit power for regulators to block foreign illicit stablecoin flows; his amendment failed on the same party‑line split.
Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D‑Md.) pointed to estimates that more than 150 billion dollars in digital assets flowed through wallets tied to illicit activity last year and highlighted a large North Korean exchange hack where DeFi services helped launder funds.
His proposal to make it unlawful to release a DeFi protocol with the stated purpose of enabling money laundering, sanctions evasion or terror finance also fell in an 11–13 vote, after Republicans argued that existing criminal statutes already reach that conduct.
Republicans, led by Lummis and Sen. Bernie Moreno (R‑Ohio), answered that Titles II and III of the bill already tie digital asset intermediaries into the Bank Secrecy Act, expand Treasury’s “special measures” authority and bring kiosks, brokers and exchanges into clearer federal oversight than the House version.
President Trump, World Liberty and failed ethics amendments
Ethics provisions tied to Trump’s business ties to World Liberty Financial and other crypto ventures produced some of the sharpest exchanges. Van Hollen offered an amendment to bar the president, vice president and members of Congress from business ties to crypto firms and to require more disclosure, saying it was needed because “the president and members of his family” had been involved in “corrupt crypto ventures and various crypto scams.”
Moreno said the measure belonged in the Judiciary Committee because it carried criminal penalties and defended Trump as “a good man,” accusing Van Hollen of declaring criminal conduct without a court record. The amendment failed 11–13.
Warren tried to force banking regulators to release confidential supervisory records related to Jeffrey Epstein, arguing Epstein had backed early crypto investments and that exam files could reveal what banks and supervisors knew as he moved funds through major institutions. Lummis answered that confidential supervisory material is outside a market structure bill’s scope, and that amendment also failed, even after Kennedy said he would have supported it without “co‑conspirator” language.
DeFi safe harbor deal exposes Democratic split
One of the most consequential votes came on Lummis Amendment 122, a technical package negotiated with Sen. Mark Warner (D‑Va.) that refines when a DeFi protocol counts as controlled by a small group and interacts with the bill’s core safe harbors.
Warren argued the amendment embeds “a narrow test” for which entities count as crypto intermediaries and imports a Section 604 “loophole” that shields decentralized services from basic anti‑money‑laundering rules, saying that “it doesn’t matter if you have rules if nobody has to follow them.”
After a short technical fix to strike two lines, the committee adopted the amendment 18–6, with Warner, Cortez Masto and Alsobrooks joining Republicans. That vote marked a clear split: Warren, Reed and Van Hollen opposed the compromise, while a “crypto Democrat” bloc accepted the DeFi framework as a basis to refine before floor action.
Process fight over which amendments get heard
The markup also turned into a test of Scott’s control over the amendment list. Before the hearing, he ruled more than a dozen proposals out of order on drafting and filing grounds, including a National Sheriffs Association‑backed fix from Sen. Catherine Cortez Masto (D‑Nev.) on decentralized platform enforcement and a community‑bank‑supported stablecoin‑yield tweak from Reed and Sen. Tina Smith (D‑Minn.).
Later, seeking a bipartisan outcome, Scott reinstated several amendments, including Lummis 122, after Democrats such as Warner and Gallego said committee votes on those compromises would make support easier. Warren objected that he was reviving a subset of Republican‑side language while leaving law enforcement and community‑bank proposals sidelined.
Van Hollen noted that some of his own properly drafted amendments never reached a vote, even as previously disqualified Lummis text passed 18–6.
Scott replied that he and Warren had agreed to cap amendments from each side, and that within that cap he was using discretion to serve Democrats who wanted a bipartisan result.
Gallego and Alsobrooks give Clarity Act its bipartisan spine
Through the day, Republicans accepted targeted changes that industry and moderates backed, including Sen. Mike Rounds’ AI sandbox and Sen. Dave McCormick’s portfolio‑margin language, both adopted with Democratic support. They rejected every Democratic attempt to extend sanctions tools, bar bailouts, tighten DeFi liability or write ethics rules into the bill.
By the final vote, the Democratic side had split into clear camps. Warren, Warnock, Van Hollen, Smith and Reed built a record that presents Clarity as an industry‑driven framework that weakens enforcement and leaves presidential conflicts untouched. Warner helped shape key language but kept leverage for later stages.
Gallego and Alsobrooks supplied the decisive Democratic votes that turned a partisan project into a 15–9 bipartisan committee win, while both signaled that support on the floor will depend on further movement on ethics and enforcement as the bill heads toward merger with the Agriculture Committee’s version and a 60‑vote test before the full Senate.
