Senate Unveils New Clarity Act Text As Ethics Deal Sparks Fresh Debate

U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce forum. (Photo by Ted Soqui/Corbis via Getty Images)

Corbis via Getty Images

Senators released the full text of the 600‑page Digital Asset Market Clarity Act this week, intensifying debate over a newly negotiated ethics provision and exposing fresh divides over enforcement authority, consumer protections and financial inclusion. The Clarity Act debate, already active for months, drew strong reactions after Sens. Cynthia Lummis, R‑Wyo., and Bernie Moreno, R‑Ohio, announced an ethics agreement with the White House on Tuesday, setting the stage for a renewed push to secure bipartisan support.

WASHINGTON, DC – Senators dash out of the Senate Chamber at the U.S. Capitol on Sunday, Aug. 7, 2022 in Washington, DC. (Kent Nishimura / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

Senate Committees Step In

Statements by Republican lawmakers from Senate Banking and Agriculture committees were collegial and touted bipartisanship. Lummis stressed the urgency of now, despite Democratic dissent.

“The U.S. has always been at the forefront of financial innovation, and the coming weeks are likely the last real chance we will have for years to get this right… I also want to thank my Democratic colleagues for their important contributions to this draft, and express my commitment to reaching a deal in the coming days that will allow this legislation to become law.”

Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman followed suit.

“This legislation establishes a clear, regulatory framework for digital commodities. It delivers the certainty consumers, businesses and markets have been calling for by creating strong safeguards while supporting responsible innovation. This is the result of months of bipartisan collaboration and continued conversations with stakeholders to strengthen the final bill.”

Senate Democrats Push Back

Although vowing to continue to reach out across the aisle and even put forth their own draft, Democratic senators characterized the ethics language as a nonstarter and not serious.

“The Republican-proposed text of the CLARITY Act as it currently stands falls short. Key provisions including those addressing ethics for elected officials, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity must be strengthened. We have been working in good faith with our Republican colleagues for the past year and will continue doing so to get this over the finish line.” – Sens. Catherine Cortez Masto, D‑Nev.; Angela Alsobrooks, D‑Md.; Cory Booker, D‑N.J.; Ruben Gallego, D‑Ariz.; John Hickenlooper, D‑Colo.; Mark Warner, D‑Va.; and Raphael Warnock, D‑Ga.

Big Banks Weigh In

Traditional financial institutions also weighed in. Since January, they have made it clear they also want to negotiate the terms. Goldman Sachs Chairman and CEO David Solomon broke from Wall Street and was positive in a news interview.

“I’m very supportive of moving the Clarity Act forward, so we can get some market structure in place and start to move the innovation process along.”

Meanwhile, a statement from the Bank Policy Institute outlined its issues with the draft.

“We support the establishment of a regulatory framework for digital assets that protects Main Street’s access to credit, stops criminals and bad actors from financing their illicit operations with anonymity and impunity and safeguards America’s national security interests. Unfortunately, the new Clarity Act text still does not address the bill’s shortcomings on these issues.”

Senator Cory Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey, speaks during the DC Blockchain Summit in Washington, DC, US, on Wednesday, March 18, 2026. Photographer: Al Drago/Bloomberg

© 2026 Bloomberg Finance LP

Does Clarity Foster Financial Inclusion?

Apprehensions about Clarity are coming from multiple sources. It is no secret that the legislation lacks meaningful measures to catalyze financial inclusion. Although the National Organization of Black Law Enforcement Executives endorsed the bill earlier this month, it was in response to developer protections and illicit finance.

On Thursday, the U.S. Hispanic Chamber of Commerce circulated a letter outlining economic concerns, largely around the fight over stablecoin yield.

“The impact of reduced community bank lending would fall disproportionately on Hispanic entrepreneurs. Any reduction in the lending capacity of these institutions threatens to widen existing disparities in business formation, access to capital, wealth creation, and economic mobility.”

The stark reality is substantive provisions to promote equity and access are absent from this legislation. Even Democrats, who claim to be champions, failed to introduce any such measures in the landmark bill.

Interestingly, there is an obscure reference awkwardly inserted, yet not associated with any actionable policy, on page 197.

Financial inclusion is often conflated with consumer protection, yet these goals are not the same. In the case of the Clarity Act, the language is tucked away in Section 10307, “As part of the national strategy for combating terrorist and other illicit financing.”

Bill Excerpts: SEC. 10307. Amendments To Monetary Instrument

(c) TREASURY RISK ASSESSMENT.—As part of the national strategy for combating terrorist and other illicit financing required under sections 261 and 262 of the Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act (Public Law 115–44; 131 Stat. 934), the Secretary of the Treasury shall consider—

(4) the benefits of the use of self-hosted wallets to—

(A) enhance user privacy and civil liberties through direct asset custody; and

(B) expand financial inclusion and access for communities underserved by traditional financial institutions;

(5) end user and counterparty risks associated with self-hosted wallets, including consumer fraud, cybersecurity, and identity verification

Vote On Clarity Remains Uncertain

The biggest takeaway from all the posturing and missives is that lawmakers still have much work left to do to secure the 60 votes needed to advance this bill as the clock ticks. The good news is there is time before midterms for bipartisan compromise to rally support and votes.