US Prosecutors Seek CLARITY Rules Update as Voting Window Shrinks: Report

US law-enforcement–linked prosecutors’ groups are asking for targeted changes to the CLARITY Act, a sweeping cryptocurrency market structure bill moving through the US Senate, according to a Politico report published this week.

With the Senate approaching a month-long break, the proposals focus on how the legislation addresses developer-related obligations inside the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act—particularly within provisions tied to the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA). The White House’s crypto adviser, Patrick Witt, publicly pushed back on the idea that the administration is aligned with the changes, describing them as far from the Trump administration’s position.

Key takeaways

• Prosecutors’ groups reportedly urged the White House to adjust BRCA provisions in the CLARITY Act, including language aimed at developer conduct and criminal liability.
• White House adviser Patrick Witt said the reported proposals are “not even close” to the administration’s position and suggested the process wasn’t the product of “productive negotiations.”
• Democratic lawmakers have also signaled concerns about ethics rules in the CLARITY Act related to Donald Trump’s crypto investments, intensifying internal opposition.
• The Senate is not scheduled to vote on the bill before a planned summer recess, shrinking the time window for resolution.
• At the policy level, CLARITY’s market structure proposal would shift oversight from the SEC toward the CFTC, a move that would change the enforcement and regulatory toolkit for digital assets.

Prosecutors ask to narrow developer liability language

In a letter to the White House, the National Association of Assistant US Attorneys and the National District Attorneys Association reportedly requested changes to specific provisions regarding developers in the CLARITY Act, Politico reported on Tuesday.

Under the proposal, the groups want adjustments within the BRCA sections that are embedded in the larger CLARITY framework. The reported language would ensure guidelines for developers do not “create, expand, or modify criminal liability under Federal law.”

For developers and compliance teams, this kind of drafting is more than semantic. If regulatory certainty language is read to broaden exposure to federal criminal theories, it can influence how teams document releases, build features, manage tokens and smart contracts, and interpret what actions might be treated as legally risky. Conversely, if the goal is to prevent the bill from being interpreted as expanding criminal liability, it signals an attempt to narrow enforcement hooks that could arise from new obligations.

White House pushback complicates talks

White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt responded to the reports by arguing the proposals are not aligned with the administration’s stance. In a post on X, Witt said the provisions were “not even close” to the Trump administration’s position and implied there had been no “productive negotiations” behind the letter.

Separately, Politico reported that Senator Catherine Cortez Masto has been pressing the White House to address the BRCA before any potential vote on CLARITY.

That sequence matters for the bill’s timing. If lawmakers believe the BRCA language remains unresolved, they may resist moving the bill forward procedurally—especially when opposition from other quarters, such as ethics concerns, remains active.

Ethics controversy and party-level resistance

The CLARITY Act has faced additional headwinds among Democrats, with reported criticism centered on ethics rules related to President Donald Trump’s crypto investments. According to the article coverage referenced in the source material, Trump’s crypto holdings were reported to be worth $1.4 billion in 2025.

Earlier coverage from Cointelegraph noted that objections are tied to ethics restrictions within the bill for US President Trump’s crypto investments. In the broader political environment, ethics provisions often become a focal point for party discipline: opponents can use them to unify resistance even if they otherwise accept parts of the market structure framework.

As of Wednesday, the Senate Majority Leader John Thune had not scheduled a vote on the legislation before the chamber breaks, leaving uncertainty around whether negotiations can resolve both the ethics dispute and the BRCA/developer language before Senate procedures become harder to complete.

Timing pressure before the summer recess

The Senate is set to hold state work periods from Aug. 7 to Sept. 14, creating a compressed window for any vote or late-stage compromise. Thune told reporters last week that the Senate was unlikely to vote on the bill before the August recess.

One procedural complication highlighted in the source material is the difficulty of moving a contested bill through a full sequence of steps. Anne Kelley, a partner at Mercury Strategies, wrote on X that even if CLARITY were introduced “today,” the procedural steps—cloture, amendment processing, a second cloture, and as much as 30 hours of debate—would make finishing before recess extremely difficult without unanimous consent to waive process, which she described as rare for contested bills.

For readers watching legislative momentum, this is a key point: when the political environment is split, the Senate’s floor mechanics become a practical gatekeeper. Even if there is willingness to compromise, the calendar can determine whether changes occur in time to shape the final text.

What CLARITY aims to change: SEC versus CFTC authority

Beyond the fight over ethics and developer language, CLARITY’s central market-structure proposal would shift regulatory focus over digital assets largely from the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the US Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The source material also notes that the CFTC currently has fewer tools and resources than the SEC for enforcement and oversight in certain contexts.

At the staffing and leadership level, both agencies have been described as understaffed at the leadership level, with the CFTC having one chair and the SEC having three commissioners—an imbalance that can affect how quickly agencies can operationalize new authorities, issue guidance, or prioritize enforcement.

For market participants, the SEC-to-CFTC shift matters because it can change how enforcement risk is assessed and how compliance is designed. Different agencies can interpret market conduct, custody, derivatives-related activity, and token classifications through different legal frameworks and enforcement priorities.

That institutional reshuffling is also why the BRCA debate may be consequential. If developer protections are intended to prevent criminal-liability expansion, the bill’s final language will determine how broadly those boundaries apply—and which regulator’s view ends up carrying more practical weight for day-to-day decision-making by builders.

As the Senate approaches its August recess, the immediate question is whether lawmakers can reconcile both the BRCA/developer provisions and the ethics-related objections without derailing the bill procedurally. The next signals to watch are whether the White House engages directly on the BRCA language and whether a vote is even realistically possible before the chamber pauses for the state work period.