The CLARITY Act (formally H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025) is the biggest piece of crypto market-structure legislation Congress has taken up. It has passed the House and is sitting in the Senate. This page explains what it actually does, what it doesn't, where it is today, and what's still being fought over — using primary sources, without taking a side.
Most coverage of crypto legislation is either cheerleading or panic. This page is neither. Legislative facts link to a bill action, roll call vote, committee record, or official statement; news reporting is cited only where developments are not yet in the official record. If you disagree with a number here, this is where you find out why.
CLARITY is a market-structure bill. That means it sets rules for how digital assets are traded, who registers as an exchange, and which federal agency oversees which token. It is not a legalization bill (crypto is already legal in the U.S.), it does not decide which specific tokens are securities, and it does not set a price for anything.
The formal name is the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, introduced as H.R. 3633 in the 119th Congress. It was drafted by the House Financial Services and House Agriculture Committees jointly — the pairing matters, because it's the same jurisdictional split the bill itself creates.
Source: Congress.gov bill page
(all dates verifiable against primary records)
| Date | Action | Where to verify |
|---|---|---|
| 2025-07-17 | House passed 294–134 (Roll Call #199) | clerk.house.gov/Votes/2025199 |
| 2025-09-18 | Received in Senate; referred to the Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs | Congress.gov actions list |
| 2026-05-14 | Senate Banking Committee ordered reported with amendment in the nature of a substitute, favorable, 15–9 | banking.senate.gov |
| 2026-06-01 | Reported by Sen. Scott (R-SC); placed on Senate Legislative Calendar under General Orders, Calendar No. 423 | Congress.gov actions list |
| 2026-07-22 | New combined draft released by Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-WY), merging Banking and Agriculture Committee work | lummis.senate.gov |
| 2026-08-03 | Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-SD) stated the Senate would hold an initial floor vote on H.R. 3633 before the August recess | Bloomberg Government (news report) |
| 2026-08-06 | Thune reversed course; with the ethics-provision impasse unresolved, the pre-recess vote was pulled. Thune: "We're getting that queued up first thing when we come back." | The Block 2026-08-06 (news report) |
| 2026-08-08 | Senate Majority Leader Thune filed cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633 (Calendar No. 423) before recess. This is a procedural first step, not passage; the vote on invoking cloture is scheduled for the Senate's return, week of 2026-09-15. Cloture requires 60 votes to invoke. No floor vote on the bill itself has yet been held. | Congress.gov actions list; CoinDesk 2026-08-08 (news report) |
Every crypto bill for the last five years has been arguing about the same thing: which federal agency regulates which digital asset. CLARITY is Congress's answer.
The current situation (no CLARITY): The SEC has claimed most tokens are unregistered securities. The CFTC has claimed the biggest ones (Bitcoin, Ether) are commodities. Neither has a formal statutory line, so enforcement has run through court cases, one company at a time.
Under CLARITY: the bill creates a new statutory category — "digital commodity" — that would move qualifying tokens into CFTC jurisdiction. Tokens that don't qualify would stay with the SEC as securities or fall into a narrower "ancillary asset" category the Senate Banking draft addresses separately.
The rough test (as reported): a digital asset is a "digital commodity" when it is intrinsically linked to a blockchain system and its value comes from the use of that blockchain — not from a claim on the issuer's revenue, profits, assets, or debts.
What this changes in practice (if the bill passes as-drafted):
What this does NOT decide: which specific existing tokens are commodities and which are securities. That determination happens after enactment, through the joint SEC-CFTC rulemaking process.
(the most useful section on this page)
The provisions below describe the Senate discussion draft released July 22; none are enacted law. Each position below is stated as its own advocates state it. No editorial "sides."
The July 22 combined draft includes a ban on the President, Vice President, senior executive-branch officials, and members of Congress from issuing or sponsoring digital assets. The Department of Justice enforces it, with civil penalties up to $250,000 per day per violation (CNBC 2026-07-22).
"This is another step in my years-long journey to ensure the U.S. leads the way on digital assets… likely the last real chance we will have for years to get this right."
"This DOJ enforcing an ethics provision? That's an unserious offer, and I wouldn't support the bill if that's the language."
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY) has said the bill cannot move without an acceptable ethics provision.
The specific point of contention: Democrats argue state attorneys general should also have enforcement authority, not only DOJ. The current draft preempts most state enforcement of these provisions.
The ethics section is reported to sunset on 2029-01-20, which some Democrats characterize as inadequate and some Republicans characterize as a reasonable review point (CoinDesk 2026-07-22; date corroborated by Decrypt, The Block, and coindoo 2026-07-22).
The combined draft includes provisions from the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA). These clarify that non-custodial developers, node operators, and validators — parties that never take control of user funds — are not "money transmitters" and therefore not subject to that regulatory regime.
Position for: developers argue the current legal ambiguity has driven talent offshore.
Position against: some Democratic senators and consumer advocates argue the language is broader than needed and could shield actors who effectively control user funds through code.
Consumer Reports opposed the House-passed bill, per Programs Director Chuck Bell:
"This bill prioritizes regulatory certainty for the crypto industry at the expense of consumer protection."
Their specific list of missing protections (Consumer Reports advocacy statement):
Position for the bill: industry and Republican sponsors argue federal preemption is necessary to avoid a 50-state regulatory patchwork.
Position against: Democrats and consumer advocates argue the preemption strips protections that don't exist at the federal level.
Related to (5a) and (5c). The bill broadly preempts state laws regulating the offer or sale of digital assets for federally registered firms, with a carve-out for general antifraud statutes. Democrats argue state AGs should retain enforcement authority; the current draft largely centralizes enforcement federally.
The Senate began its August recess on 2026-08-10 and does not return until 2026-09-14 (2026 Senate calendar, published November 2025).
The pre-recess window has closed without cloture or a floor vote. The next legislative window opens on the Senate's return on 2026-09-14, with the November 2026 midterm election increasingly compressing whatever floor time follows.
None of that is a prediction. It's arithmetic against a published calendar.
Whatever Washington decides, the XRP Ledger keeps producing blocks every three-to-four seconds. If you want to check that yourself:
Congress moves at its own pace. The ledger doesn't wait, and neither does this site's evidence trail.