The Clarity Act failed to cross the critical voting threshold, and the bill was blocked.

Todju, the gold fortune.

Update: In the early hours of 16 Beijing time, the United States Senate voted on a procedural motion to close the CLARITY Bill, which ended with 49 votes in favour and 50 against and blocked its progress.

One of the leading drafters, Senator Cynthia Lummis, issued a statement after failing to move the bill forward, accusing the Senate Democratic Party of “never really taking consumer protection seriously and preserving American leadership”.

Democratic Senator Elizabeth Warren criticized the bill for exacerbating the corruption of Trump and the ethical clause negotiated between the Republican Party and the White House as “a little veil”, stating that it could not prevent Trump from continuing to profit from encryption.Warren also said...CLARITYThe bill would open up a huge loophole in the nearly 100-year securities law, allow non-encrypted companies to chain assets to circumvent investor protection and enable banks to use customer deposits for encrypted lending, trading derivatives, operating nodes and selling related software.

Summary:The CLARTY Bill is on the move, and this is a reminder of the evolution of the CLARITY Act from its conception to its upcoming voting.

I. THE CLARITY PLAY IS SUPPOSED TO PROCEDURAL VIEWS

On 15 September, according to official sources, the United States Senate will conduct a procedural vote on the CLARITY Bill at 14:15 local time. The vote requires 60 votes in order for the bill to enter into formal deliberation.

According to the encryption journalist Eleanor Terret, it is not clear that the encryption industry expects that the U.S. Democratic Party’s counter-proposals based on the CLARITY Act will respond to much or even all of the Republicans’ targeted changes last night. The Republicans will either give up before tomorrow’s vote or tell the Democrats “to vote first if they want to change it.”

Under the threshold of 60 votes, there are still multiple resistances to the CLARITY Bill.

By the Attorney General of New York.Letitia JamesThe 18 lead state attorneys-general sent a letter to the Senate’s Banking Commission leadership on 14 September urging the Senate to refuse to adopt the CLARITY bill in its current form. The letter stated that it would weaken State law enforcement powers at the level of government, while fraud in the digital asset sector was increasing.

Senator America.Warren.It was suggested that the new provision might allow officials appointed by Trump to cease law enforcement and that there were loopholes allowing them to continue to profit from business such as World Liberty Financial. She also plans to seek the unanimous approval of the Senate for the adoption of a bill to end corruption in the banking sector of the President, restricting access by the President, Vice-President and relevant officials and family members to bank licences and withdrawing such licences issued to persons concerned since 20 January 2025. The proposal is expected to be difficult to gain the support of the Republican-controlled Senate.

White House encryption consultant.Patrick WittIt was stated that White House officials had met with Trump last Friday to inform him of the Government's ethical provisions in the latest version of the CLARITY Act, and that Trump had subsequently agreed to make further concessions. The restrictions may require Trump to transfer investments in crypto assets to blind trust and grant the Länder a certain degree of accountability. Witt claims that this would be the "most powerful" and "historical" arrangement of federal ethics law, while Trump was advised that the relevant provisions could not be used to combat them politically. The Senate Republican Party published a new version of the bill on Sunday evening, continuing to compromise with the Democratic Party on issues such as government ethics and criminal liability for DeFi projects. Witt said that the Republican Party had accepted about 95 per cent of the Democratic Party's negotiators; If parliamentarians still oppose the bill at this time, their decisions may be more politically motivated than in terms of policy differences. 

However, according to the Democratic Senate Banking Commission staff, the new text still gives excessive powers to officials appointed by Trump, in particular the United States Attorney-General, which may prevent the enforcement of ethical provisions. Under the current design, state Attorneys General cannot directly hold officials such as the President, Vice-President, Members of Congress and federal judges accountable for violations, but can take action against the encrypted trading platform for assets that are inappropriately accessed and the United States Attorney General. In addition, the Attorney-General of several states, banking associations and some individuals in the encryption industry have challenged law enforcement powers, stabilization currency gains and DeFi provisions respectively. 

Even if the threshold is reached, it will be subject to amendment discussions and other voting; if finally approved by the Senate, it will have to be returned to the House of Representatives. Witt indicates that even if the bill is not passed, the SEC and CFTC will continue to push ahead with the development of rules for encryption control.

As of the time of writing, Polymarket considered that the CLARITY Act was only 20 per cent likely to be signed into law in 2026, while yesterday the CLARITY Act was as high as 31 per cent.

Chairman, US SECPaul AtkinsThe Congress is urged to move forward with the CLARITY Bill and to submit it to the President for signature as soon as possible. At the same time, he stated that, regardless of whether the bill was finally passed, the SEC would continue to advance the agenda of crypto asset regulation in support of United States investors and technology innovators. Atkins stated that the project Crystal under the SEC would be built around three pillars: developing rules for the distribution of crypto assets and providing a clearer regulatory framework for enterprises in the United States through digital asset financing; Update the rules of transfer agencies, which have been in existence for some 40 years, to include a blockchain title book; The requirements for the hosting of crypto assets by investment advisers and regulated funds are clearly defined and, under certain conditions, are allowed to host and use state-licensed trust companies. The United States Senate will hold a critical procedural vote on Tuesday to move the bill forward. Currently, banking groups continue to demand increased restrictions on interest and incentives for stable currency, while 18 other state and Washington, D.C. Attorneys General are concerned that the bill weakens local powers to track encryption fraud.

Galaxy CEO Mike NovogratzThe communication indicates that if the CLARITY Bill does not move forward tomorrow, it may take a long time before we can get cryptocurrency supervision — if any. It would be terrible for the United States and would force more of our industry to move abroad. The digital and blockchain revolution will continue. Two more years would be required for SEC and CFTC to develop rules and allow businesses to start. But long-term uncertainty is not good. Mike Novogratz called on bipartisan senators to see the big picture.

The ETF Store PresidentNate GeraciThe communication states that the only reason that the CLARITY Bill has not been adopted so far is because the cryptocurrency is hitting traditional banking patterns ... It's really as simple as that. We can discuss ethical provisions, the BRCA (Registration of blockchain Regulation Act), etc., but ultimately all point to the same core: cryptocurrency is reducing demand for banks as intermediaries and shocks the bank’s business model based on net interest income (NII). And some politicians support this traditional model because they gain benefits and incentives from it.

III. A review of the timeline between the prototype and voting of the CLARITY Bill

The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act was formally introduced on 29 May 2025; In June, it was considered by the House of Representatives Committee and on 17 July was adopted by the Chamber of Deputies with 294:134; The bill was subsequently transferred to the Senate and was rewritten with two parties in multiple rounds from late 2025 to 2026; On 14 May 2026, the Senate Banking Commission passed the bill by 15:9; After months of games around the issues of stable currency gains, DeFi supervision and the Trans-Trump family ' s encryption interests, the Senate finally set 15 September as a key procedural polling date. On 15 September, the Senate voted to close the debate.

The specific timeline is as follows:

• On 29 May 2025, the Chairman of the Financial Services Committee of the House of Representatives, French Hill, officially introduced H.R. 3633, Digital Assembly Market Clarity Act of 2025. Since then, the CLARITY Bill has entered the 119th National Assembly legislative process.

• On 10 June 2025, the Finance Services Committee of the House of Representatives and the Agriculture Committee respectively moved forward with the bill. The two committees completed critical deliberations and paved the way for a full House vote.

• On 11 June 2025, the Financial Services Committee of the House of Representatives passed H.R. 3633. The bill formally moved from the committee level to the institution-wide promotion phase.

• On 17 July 2025, the House of Representatives passed by 294 votes in favour and 134 against the CLARITY Bill. This was the most important legislative breakthrough to date, with stronger bipartisan support.

• On 22 July 2025, Senator Tim Scott and Cynthia Lummis released a draft Senate version of the bill.

• In the second half of 2025, the Senate continued to negotiate around market structures, SEC/CFTC competences, DeFi, and stable currency gains. The bill evolved from a version of the House of Representatives to a comprehensive market structure bill that the Senate would need to renegotiate.

• On 13 January 2026, the Senate Banking Commission published a new version of the CLARITY Act and facilitated its consideration.

• On 29 January 2026, the Senate Committee on Agriculture adopted its partial market structure bill. Another important committee path is moving forward.

• At the end of January 2026, the White House intervened in a dispute to stabilize money gains, bringing together banking and encryption. Stabilizing money gains became one of the major obstacles for the Senate to move forward on the CLARITY bill.

• In April 2026, the Senate Banking Commission continued to push forward with the CLARITY Bill. Issues such as stabilization of currency gains and conflict of interest in Trump remain unresolved.

• On 12 May 2026, the Senate Banking Commission issued a new version (ANS) of about 309 pages. This is an important rewriting of the Senate version, which deals with a number of core provisions such as stabilization currency gains and DeFi.

• On 14 May 2026, the Senate Banking Commission passed by 15:9 the CLARITY Bill. The bill completes a critical break-in at the level of the Senate Committee and formally approaches the entire Senate House for a vote.

• In June-July 2026, the Senate continued its negotiations around stabilization gains, DeFi, enforcement powers, etc. The bill failed to complete the entire House process before the summer recess and entered into longer bipartisan negotiations.

• On 22 August 2026, the Senate decided to hold its first key procedural vote on the CLARITY bill on 15 September. The bill was re-established with a clear timetable for Senate advancement.

• In early September 2026, encryption and banking intensified their lobbying efforts. Stabilizing currency gains, competition for bank deposits, and the Transple family's interest in encryption became major disputes at the final stage.

• On 14 September 2026, the Republican Party of the Senate published a further revised version.

• On 15 September 2026, the Senate held a critical vote on the CLARITY Act. This was not a vote to finally pass the bill, but rather to decide whether it would be possible to close the debate and proceed to subsequent consideration/final voting.

More can be found:

What's the change in the final version of the Clarity Act?

Trump voluntarily agreed to a new code of ethics. The Clarity Act is going through?

CARITY VOLUNTARY 15 SEPTEMBER: What has been changed to the new version and what are the obstacles?

The new version of Clarity, before the critical vote, remains silent on the White House's moral terms and calculates the geometry of winning?