Show
Seven Democratic senators who hold key votes necessary for the CLARITY Act to become law stated on Wednesday that the latest version of the bill proposed by Republicans doesn’t meet their requirements.
What They Said
Senators Angela Alsobrooks (Maryland), Cory Booker (New Jersey), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada), Ruben Gallego (Arizona), John Hickenlooper (Colorado), Mark Warner (Virginia), and Raphael Warnock (Georgia) all signed the statement.
According to their statement, the current version of the CLARITY Act proposed by Republicans isn’t strong enough. They specifically stated that important parts related to ethics for officials, protecting consumers, preventing illegal financial activity, avoiding conflicts of interest, and maintaining fair markets all need improvement.
Just as important as what we criticize, it’s how we end the conversation. We’ve genuinely tried to work with Republicans for the last year, and we plan to keep collaborating with them until this is resolved.
This isn’t a dismissal of the entire bill, but rather a disapproval of its current form. Importantly, they’ve stated their willingness to continue discussions – meaning the proposal is paused, not completely abandoned.
Why These Seven
These people aren’t against the bill; they’re the ones who have been working on it, and represent the best chance of getting enough support to pass it in the Senate.
In May, Senators Alsobrooks and Gallego were the only Democrats on the Senate Banking Committee to support the bill, but they clarified that their votes were intended to keep discussions going, not to guarantee their support during a full Senate vote. Senator Booker has been working on the parts of the bill that fall under the Senate Agriculture Committee. Senator Cortez Masto has been leading Democratic efforts to protect developers, and Senator Warner has said his vote depends on approval from law enforcement.
Honestly, the pushback on this new ‘Clarity’ proposal feels like it’s about *how* they’re trying to pass it, not necessarily the content itself. Senator Booker pointed out it’s clearly a Republican-led effort, and the only way it’s going to get through is if they actually work with Democrats to build a truly bipartisan agreement. It’s less about the rules of the proposal and more about the political path to getting it approved, as far as I can tell.
The Ethics Mechanism at Issue
As a researcher following these developments, I’ve learned that the ethical guidelines included in Wednesday’s draft originated from an agreement reached between the White House and Republican senators. President Trump signed off on this earlier in the week. Unfortunately, Democrats weren’t involved in those negotiations and hadn’t reviewed the final version of the text before it was released.
Alsobrooks has clearly explained why she disagrees with the proposed plan. She believes its method for enforcing ethical rules – relying on the Justice Department – isn’t strong enough. Her concern is that because the department’s leaders answer directly to the president, it would recreate the very conflict of interest the rule is intended to prevent.
The disagreement has been growing for over a year, starting with the Senate’s work on the GENIUS Act. However, it became much more intense after Donald Trump reported over $1.4 billion in income from cryptocurrency for 2025. The latest version of the bill does include some restrictions on digital asset investments for high-ranking government officials, but Democrats believe these restrictions aren’t strong enough.
The White House is characterizing opposition to the bill as intentional delays, and suggests that if Senate Democrats reject it despite recent changes made to address their issues, people will realize the Democrats weren’t genuinely trying to pass legislation.
Thune Is Moving Anyway
Senator John Thune’s team stated he plans to proceed with his agenda soon, which could mean bringing a vote on a bill even though many senators have already said they oppose it.
It’s currently unclear if there are enough votes to pass the bill. It requires 60 votes to end debate. Republicans currently have either 52 or 53 seats after Senator Graham’s passing. This means 7 or 8 Democrats would need to vote with them, assuming all Republicans support the bill. However, some believe as many as ten Democratic votes could be needed, factoring in potential opposition from Senators Hawley and Paul – who previously voted against a similar bill – and the absence of Senator McConnell.
Those seven senators who released a statement on Wednesday aren’t a group that can be ignored or bypassed. They *are* the deciding force.
The Senate will begin its summer break after August 7th, and there’s a lot of other legislation they’re trying to pass before then. Most lawmakers see that date as the last chance to pass this bill this year, as after the break, the focus will shift to campaigning for the midterm elections.
What Would Have to Change
The report highlights five areas needing improvement: ethical conduct for public officials, safeguarding consumers, preventing illegal financial activities, addressing conflicts of interest, and maintaining fair markets. Discussions about ethics, conflicts of interest, and illicit finance have been ongoing since spring. The concern regarding illicit finance is also tied to disagreements over protections for software developers, as law enforcement groups oppose measures that would shield those who don’t hold user funds.
Over the next few days, Republicans will decide whether to revisit the bill’s text or call for a vote on it. If a vote fails, it would be a wasted effort. Continuing to negotiate carries the risk of running out of time to reach an agreement.
Wednesday’s events proved that the deal between the White House and Senate Republicans didn’t actually settle the ethics concerns. It only satisfied one side of the issue.
2026-07-23 09:43