The CLARITY Act — where it stands, in plain English

Last verified: 2026-07-24
This page tracks a live legislative fight. Everything below is checked against primary sources — bill text, roll call records, official statements — and dated. Last verified: 2026-07-24. We update when the status changes. This is not legal advice and it is not investment advice.

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. Every claim below links to a bill action, a roll call vote, a committee record, or an official statement. If you disagree with a number here, this is where you find out why.

1. What CLARITY is

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

2. Where it stands right now

(all dates verifiable against primary records)

DateActionWhere 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

What has NOT happened

3. The core question: SEC vs CFTC

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 moves qualifying tokens into CFTC jurisdiction. Tokens that don't qualify 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; section number to be confirmed against bill text before publishing): 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.

4. What CLARITY does NOT do

(the most useful section on this page)

5. What's still being fought over

Each position below is stated as its own advocates state it. No editorial "sides."

5a. Ethics — who enforces, and how permanent

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).

Republican position (per Sen. Lummis's release)

"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."

Democratic position (per Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, D-MD)

"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).

5b. DeFi and developer liability (the BRCA piece)

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.

5c. Consumer protection

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.

5d. State AG enforcement

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.

6. The timing reality (calendar mechanics)

The Senate begins its August recess on 2026-08-10 and does not return until 2026-09-14 (2026 Senate calendar, published November 2025).

That gives senators roughly the next two-and-a-half weeks to file cloture, hold a floor vote, and pass the bill. Missing that window pushes any vote to mid-September or later, with the November 2026 midterm election increasingly compressing the floor calendar.

None of that is a prediction. It's arithmetic against a published calendar.

7. What's verifiable regardless

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.