The CLARITY bill is not dead, but the time window is closing.

Written by: Christina Comben

Translated by: Chopper, Foresight News

Over the past year, the cryptocurrency industry, lobbying groups, and congressional members have worked hard to push the CLARITY bill forward, but now there is a sense of helplessness like "water is everywhere but not a drop to drink." Numerous rounds of negotiations, amendments, and political maneuvering have not succeeded in getting the bill past the Senate.

The CLARITY bill faced significant obstacles in the Senate this week, but it has not been declared dead; it can only be said to be moving forward in a wounded state. This piece of digital asset market framework legislation still has a chance to gather the 60 votes needed to pass in the Senate.

Republican Senator Thom Tillis changed his vote from support to opposition at the last moment, a move driven by procedural considerations. On the surface, it appears to be a betrayal against the bill, but it is actually a parliamentary maneuver: through this action, he can submit a motion for reconsideration, keeping the possibility of the bill returning to the Senate for a vote open.

Ryan Eagan, the director of federal affairs for the Crypto Council for Innovation (CCI), said in an interview: "Senator Tillis's motion for reconsideration allows the current Congress to restart the final debate vote on the CLARITY bill at any time. The specifics of the next steps are still unclear, but maintaining this possibility is partly thanks to the progress made in negotiations over the past week."

However, there is little time left for the bill in the Senate. There are still significant divisions between Democrats and Republicans regarding the ethical provisions involving President Trump. Even supporters of the bill admit that negotiations need to open up to a more bipartisan approach.

So, does the CLARITY bill stand any chance of revival? If it does, to what extent would the bill need to be amended to progress?

The CLARITY bill is not dead, but the time window is closing

This failed motion to end debate (a procedural vote aimed at ending discussion of the bill and moving to a final vote) does not mean the CLARITY bill's journey in Congress has come to an end. The vote result on Tuesday was 49 in favor and 50 opposed, still short of the threshold of 60 votes.

Tillis's motion for reconsideration means that a vote can be reinitiated within this session of Congress, but the proposal faces a practical difficulty: time is running out.

The Senate plans to adjourn on October 2 and will not reconvene until after the midterm elections; the House of Representatives has already entered the election recess period. It will be increasingly difficult to complete the process for the bill in both chambers by the end of the year.

Democratic Congressman Shri Thanedar, who supported the CLARITY bill during a House vote in July 2025, stated that the timeline is a major obstacle to reaching an agreement: "This Congress only has 20 legislative working days left, all scheduled after the midterm elections. Unfortunately, the chance of reaching a compromise within 2026 is very low."

A very low probability does not mean there is no possibility at all. The cryptocurrency industry can look at the precedent of the GENIUS stablecoin bill: that bill failed in a motion to end debate with a vote of 48:49 in May 2025 but passed with a vote of 66:32 just 11 days later and was officially enacted in the Senate the following month.

However, Kyle Chassé, founder of cryptocurrency investment firm MV Global, noted: "The GENIUS bill turned around 11 days after its failure, but that was under the condition that all parties had already reached an agreement. Right now, the CLARITY bill is under time pressure without enough votes to support it. If it misses the January 3 deadline next year, everything will have to start from scratch in 2027, when it is very likely that the House will be controlled by the Democrats."

The session following the midterm elections in November could theoretically give the CLARITY bill another chance, but that does not mean a consensus proposal is already prepared.

The 60-vote threshold is essentially a negotiation problem

All 49 votes in favor came from Republicans, with not a single Democratic member supporting the initiation of debate, Chassé pointed out.

Although the situation is not optimistic, that does not mean the Democrats have completely given up on the bill. On Wednesday, seven Democratic senators who voted against advancing the bill on Tuesday stated that they remain committed to pushing for the bill's enactment. Among them is Senator Angela Alsobrooks, who supported the bill's movement out of the banking committee in May but voted against it in this end debate. She said: "It is indeed time to establish regulatory rules for digital assets," and is willing to continue negotiations around the ethical provisions.

Tillis said on Wednesday that he now hopes to "convince Democrats to join the supportive camp" and "pressure Democrats to take legislative responsibility." His procedural maneuver to change his vote was precisely to retain the possibility of negotiation. "I firmly believe this is an unregulated market, and we must establish protective rules."

The point of contention is no longer whether Congress should legislate for the cryptocurrency industry, but whether the current text of the bill can garner enough bipartisan support.

Although Rep. Thanedar supports the current version of the bill, he admits that Tuesday's vote results indicate that the draft needs further collaboration between the two parties: "The failure of the CLARITY bill on Tuesday shows that if a bipartisan joint drafting model is adopted, it is more likely to form a bipartisan supermajority coalition to push the bill through formal legislation."

If saving the bill requires rewriting, what content can be retained?

Chassé believes that the issue has moved beyond the text of cryptocurrency policy itself, with the focus shifting to President Trump's cryptocurrency holdings and the related ethical provisions: "This is no longer just a matter of drafting bill text. With six weeks to the election, the vote has essentially turned into a referendum on the president's cryptocurrency assets, and the current text cannot pass."

Before Tuesday's vote, the Republicans made 126 substantial amendments according to the Democrats' demands, including tightening restrictions on public officials profiting from cryptocurrency projects and authorizing state attorneys general to enforce some ethical provisions.

Even with these concessions, Thanedar stated that the Democrats still want to further restrict "the president from using his official position for personal gain." He mentioned that Trump reported at least $1.4 billion in cryptocurrency asset gains in his 2025 annual financial disclosure, "establishing constraint mechanisms is not only to supervise the president but also to maintain the long-term health of the digital asset market."

The ethical provisions are not the only point of contention. Chassé believes the industry should not stubbornly oppose this provision. He pointed out regarding stablecoin revenue, "setting caps on revenue or circuit breakers is very likely a necessary cost to gain support from banking senators and many Democratic members," while also needing to strengthen illegal finance and state-level law enforcement-related provisions.

He suggested that self-custody and developer protection clauses are bottom-line issues the cryptocurrency industry should firmly uphold. Throughout the negotiation process, legislators and industry groups have had intense debates about how much the bill should protect non-custodial software developers from financial and anti-money laundering compliance obligations.

Congress legislative stagnation, but cryptocurrency regulation will not stop

Even if the CLARITY bill remains stuck at the congressional level, the advancement of cryptocurrency regulation in the U.S. will not halt. Eagan stated that the SEC and CFTC are "continuing to work to reduce uncertainty in the industry" through regulatory guidance, rulemaking, no-action letters, and exemption provisions.

"CCI expects that regardless of how the CLARITY bill ultimately goes, the regulatory agenda related to cryptocurrency will be vigorously advanced." He also added that the Treasury and banking regulators are still implementing the GENIUS bill's accompanying measures.

Michael Saylor, executive chairman of MicroStrategy, also pointed out that the SEC, CFTC, and Treasury can continue to issue regulatory rules based on existing laws: "Regulatory progress does not need to wait for congressional legislation."

That said, however, the introduction of rules by regulatory agencies is completely different from the formal enactment of the CLARITY bill. Executive-level regulatory guidance may be overturned with a change of government; while congressional legislation is much harder to amend.

The CLARITY bill still has a faint possibility of returning to the Senate for a vote, but whether legislators can gather 60 votes in favor without making significant changes to the core content of the bill remains uncertain.