Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Washington – The attempt to establish a comprehensive legal framework for the American crypto market ahead of the US midterm elections has failed for now. On Tuesday, September 15, 2026, the US Senate was unable to clear the procedural hurdle required for the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act. The vote ended 49 to 50; sixty votes would have been needed.
That marks a fundamental shift from the final days of negotiations. Shortly before the vote, President Donald Trump had accepted substantial parts of a bipartisan ethics proposal put forward by Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona and Republican Senator Thom Tillis of North Carolina. The concessions, however, were not enough to win the Democratic votes required.
Ethics compromise falls short of 60 votes
A possible agreement had still appeared within reach over the weekend. Republican Senators Cynthia Lummis, Tim Scott and John Boozman released a revised version of the bill which, according to them, contained 126 substantive changes made at the request of Democrats. Among these were tougher rules on financial conflicts of interest for public officials.
According to a senior Republican Senate aide, Trump accepted roughly 80 percent of the ethics package negotiated by Tillis and Gallego. It provided, among other things, that significant financial stakes in companies issuing digital assets would have to be sold or transferred into a qualified blind trust. State attorneys general were also to be given a meaningful role in enforcing the rules.
These had been central demands of Democratic senators. Even so, differences persisted right up to the vote – over the reach of the ethics rules, the inclusion of additional family members, questions of law enforcement and national security, and individual provisions on stablecoins and so-called prediction markets.
Gallego votes against advancing the bill
Ruben Gallego’s role is particularly striking. The Democrat had worked with Tillis on the tougher ethics provisions and was among the senators open in principle to a bipartisan regulatory framework. On Tuesday, he nonetheless voted against the procedural motion.
After the vote, Gallego said the bill had failed because Republicans, in his view, had not been willing to impose further limits on the president. His position makes clear that while the concessions secured in the final days had altered the text of the legislation, they did not go far enough to earn definitive Democratic support.
Other Democratic negotiators, among them Angela Alsobrooks, Mark Warner, Catherine Cortez Masto and Kirsten Gillibrand, also declined to support the procedural vote. The bipartisan coalition Republican leaders had counted on therefore failed to materialize.
Republicans vote against it too
The failure cannot be attributed to Democrats alone. Several Republican senators also voted against the procedural motion. Those opposing included Susan Collins, Josh Hawley and Jerry Moran. Thom Tillis switched his vote to no for procedural reasons, preserving the option of bringing the measure back for another vote later.
Tillis subsequently stressed that, in his view, the process for the CLARITY Act is not yet over. The motion to reconsider formally keeps open a path to returning the procedural question to the agenda. Whether the necessary sixty votes can be assembled in the coming weeks, however, remains unclear.
Dispute over Trump’s crypto business remains central
At the heart of the conflict are the extensive economic interests of the president and his family in the crypto sector. These include World Liberty Financial as well as the meme coin associated with Trump. According to the president’s financial disclosure and reporting by the Associated Press, his crypto-related income last year exceeded 1.4 billion dollars, of which more than 500 million dollars was linked to World Liberty Financial.
For Democratic senators, this creates a fundamental conflict of interest: a president with substantial financial interests in an industry would simultaneously be involved in shaping the political and regulatory framework for that very industry. Republican supporters of the bill countered that the revised version contained unusually far-reaching ethics rules while delivering urgently needed regulatory clarity for the market.
What the CLARITY Act was meant to regulate
The CLARITY Act is intended to reorganize the long-disputed division of responsibility for digital assets in the United States. At its core lies a clearer delineation of the remits of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). For crypto exchanges, brokers and other market participants, it would have created comprehensive federal rules for the first time.
The most recent version also contained additional safeguards for banks. Under certain conditions, the Treasury Secretary would have been able to intervene on a time-limited basis in stablecoin rewards where substantial deposit outflows from community banks were at risk. Rules for software developers, anti-money-laundering measures, consumer protection and trading in digital assets were likewise part of the extensive package.
The Senate defers the decision
The September 15 vote was not a final vote on passing the bill but a cloture vote on how to proceed. That is precisely what makes the outcome politically significant: the Senate could not even muster the majority needed to advance the measure in its current form.
With 49 votes in favour and 50 against, the bill fell well short of the required threshold of sixty. Democratic Senator Chris Coons did not take part in the vote. The defeat shows that the compromises negotiated in the final days could not resolve the underlying cross-party conflicts.
Consequences for the crypto market
Financial markets reacted immediately. Bitcoin fell after the vote, and shares in major crypto companies such as Coinbase and Circle came under considerable pressure. For the industry, the failure means that the hoped-for statutory clarity over the responsibilities of federal agencies will not arrive for now.
That leaves the SEC and CFTC more consequential than ever for the time being. Both agencies can work on rules for digital assets within their existing remits. This does not, however, substitute for a durable and comprehensive market-structure law passed by Congress.
A negotiating success – but not a legislative one
For Gallego and other Democrats, the picture is mixed. They persuaded Republican negotiators and the White House to incorporate considerably stricter ethics provisions into the draft. The demand for a role for state attorneys general, along with rules on the sale or transfer of significant crypto holdings into blind trusts, found their way into the final version.
At the same time, the Democratic negotiators ultimately decided against advancing the bill, holding the remaining safeguards to be insufficient. The negotiating success visible beforehand has therefore not, so far, translated into a legislative one.
What happens next
Formally, the CLARITY Act is not finished. Tillis’s procedural manoeuvre keeps the option of another vote open. Politically, however, the window is narrowing: the November midterms are approaching, and the Senate has only a handful of session weeks left for another comprehensive negotiating package.
Should no new agreement emerge, the dispute over American crypto regulation is likely to shift more heavily towards the SEC and CFTC, and towards a possible resumption of legislation after the elections.
The decisive finding after September 15 is therefore this: Trump accepted far-reaching concessions on the ethics rules, but they were not enough. The Senate stopped the CLARITY Act at the decisive procedural vote – and the conflict over crypto regulation and the president’s financial interests remains unresolved.
Editorial status: September 16, 2026. Updated following the Senate vote of September 15, 2026.
