Senate Democrats have met to assess a final 635-page Republican CLARITY Act proposal before a Sept. 15 procedural vote requiring 60 senators to begin debate.

Politico reported that Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer convened the Democratic caucus on Sunday evening after Republicans released the revised text. No Democratic leader had announced the caucus’s position on the motion as of Sept. 14.

Senate Banking Digital Assets Subcommittee Chair Cynthia Lummis released the proposal with Senate Banking Committee Chair Tim Scott and Senate Agriculture Committee Chair John Boozman. Their statement called the draft the product of more than one year of negotiations and said it incorporated 126 substantive changes requested by Democrats.

A Republican aide described the proposal to Politico as the party’s “last, best and final” offer before Tuesday’s vote. Republicans hold 53 Senate seats, so at least seven members of the Democratic caucus must support cloture if every Republican votes yes.

CLARITY Act ethics text puts pressure on Democrats

Government ethics rules have remained the main obstacle in negotiations. Democratic senators have sought restrictions addressing the ability of elected officials and their families to profit from digital assets while influencing federal policy.

Republican sponsors said President Donald Trump accepted provisions based on “substantially all” of an ethics proposal developed by Sens. Thom Tillis and Ruben Gallego. The sponsors said the rules would cover federally elected officials, federal judges and their spouses.

Eleanor Terrett reported that the proposal would require covered officials to divest certain “substantial” crypto-related financial interests or place them in a blind trust. Her account attributed the description to a Republican aide familiar with the negotiations.

The revised enforcement structure gives state attorneys general a role after earlier drafts concentrated authority within the federal government. Politico reported that state officials could pursue action involving the Justice Department or crypto exchanges when they believe the restrictions are not being enforced.

Lummis said Trump had voluntarily agreed to the new provisions. Her claim that the text creates some of the toughest ethics restrictions in U.S. history represents the sponsors’ assessment and has not been endorsed by Democratic negotiators.

Democrats must now decide whether the revised language adequately addresses their concerns about Trump-linked digital asset businesses. Incorporating requested amendments does not bind the senators who proposed them to support the entire bill.

Stablecoin circuit breaker targets deposit flight

The final draft gives the Treasury secretary new authority to respond to deposit movements linked to payment stablecoins. Sponsors described the provision as a circuit breaker intended to protect community banks if stablecoin products draw deposits away from insured institutions.

Banking groups have argued that stablecoin rewards can function like interest-bearing accounts and compete directly with bank deposits. Crypto companies maintain that overly broad restrictions could prevent platforms from providing lawful customer incentives that do not originate from stablecoin issuers.

The new language would allow federal intervention when authorities find evidence of widespread deposit flight. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent would hold the central decision-making role under the reported proposal.

As previously reported, the Sept. 15 Senate test will open debate without approving the bill. The stablecoin provision may still face amendments if senators agree to proceed.

The measure follows the GENIUS Act’s federal rules for payment stablecoin issuers. CLARITY addresses a separate question by setting rules for digital asset trading markets and dividing authority between the Securities and Exchange Commission and Commodity Futures Trading Commission.

Developer protections lose their criminal safe harbor

The revised Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act language would shield qualifying software developers from federal money-transmission registration requirements. Republican sponsors said the text creates a civil safe harbor for developers who do not control customer funds.

Terrett reported that negotiators narrowed the provision to Bank Secrecy Act requirements and civil enforcement. Earlier language expressly extending protection to criminal cases, including prosecutions under Section 1960, was removed from the final offer.

Section 1960 covers unlicensed money-transmitting businesses. Its removal means the revised developer language does not provide the explicit criminal protection contained in previous versions, according to Terrett’s description of the changes.

The Agriculture Committee section places new limits on affiliate trading and conflicts involving digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers. It clarifies that state consumer-protection laws continue to apply to activities covered by the measure.

Developer protections in the agriculture section would not create exemptions from derivatives law or change the CFTC’s existing authority over prediction markets. Those clarifications respond to concerns that software protections could unintentionally reach regulated derivatives activity.

The full proposal would establish registration paths for digital commodity exchanges, brokers and dealers. It would give the CFTC authority over covered spot digital commodity markets while preserving SEC jurisdiction over securities and investment contracts.

Tuesday’s vote only decides whether debate begins

Senate Majority Leader John Thune scheduled cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633 for 2:15 p.m. Eastern on Sept. 15. The motion generally requires 60 votes under Senate rules.

Crypto.news previously reported that Republicans need at least seven Democratic votes if their conference remains united. The required number would rise if Republican senators oppose the motion or miss the vote.

If cloture succeeds, Lummis, Boozman and Scott plan to offer the 635-page text as an amendment in the nature of a substitute. The amendment would replace the text currently attached to the House-passed legislative vehicle.

Senators could then debate the proposal and consider further amendments. Passage would require another set of procedural and final votes, while any changes from the House version would require the House to accept the Senate text or negotiate a common bill.

The House passed its CLARITY Act version by 294-134 in July 2025. The Senate Banking Committee advanced its portion by 15-9 in May 2026, when Democratic Sens. Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks joined Republicans.

Committee support did not guarantee votes for the combined floor text. The final version now includes the Banking Committee framework, Agriculture Committee provisions, the revised ethics title, stablecoin language and developer protections.

If Tuesday’s motion fails, Senate leaders may reconsider it or negotiate another version. Senate rules do not automatically send the measure back to committee, and a failed cloture vote would not enact or reject the underlying regulatory provisions. The first recorded vote is scheduled for 2:15 p.m. Eastern. If 60 senators support cloture, the final Republican text will be offered as the substitute amendment during floor consideration.

US Senate Republicans released revised text of the CLARITY Act ahead of a Tuesday procedural vote that will determine whether the bill can move toward floor consideration. The updated proposal, described by its sponsors as a “final offer” following months of negotiations, spans 635 pages and includes notable changes to how federal ethics rules would apply to public officials and their digital-asset holdings.

The revised bill text also adjusts related frameworks, including the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) and provisions addressing stablecoin “yield” mechanics. Senate Banking Digital Assets Subcommittee Chair Cynthia Lummis released the draft with Senate Banking Chairs John Boozman and Tim Scott, and said the ethics provisions were agreed to by President Donald Trump.

Key takeaways

• The final CLARITY Act draft strengthens ethics restrictions around federal officials’ significant digital-asset interests, with potential civil penalties for violations.
• State attorneys general would gain enforcement authority tied to prohibitions on officials issuing, sponsoring, or holding significant interests, plus on exchanges listing assets in violation of those rules.
• Stablecoin reward restrictions would be tied to deposit-loss findings involving community banks, with an 18-month sunset for that authority.
• The revised BRCA expands protections beyond prior scope by extending treatment exemptions to miners and validators, while removing references to an unlicensed money transmitter provision.

Tuesday procedural vote sets the pace

Senate Republicans plan to test the CLARITY Act in a procedural vote Tuesday at 2:15pm ET. The vote is designed to establish whether the measure can advance toward potential floor debate. A Republican aide characterized the revised text as a final offer aimed at winning broader Democratic support, signaling that the party expects this version to carry the negotiations over the finish line.

Lummis said the bill’s final text reflects a year of intense, bipartisan work and that 126 changes were made at Democrats’ request. She framed the revisions as ready for Senate consideration, emphasizing the ethics package as a major bargaining point. In her remarks, Lummis said President Trump “voluntarily agreed” to what she described as sweeping ethics restrictions affecting federally elected officials, judges, and their spouses.

Ethics provisions broaden enforcement and add clearer divestment rules

The most prominent changes involve the ethics framework. The revised ethics rules would allow state attorneys general to enforce prohibitions on covered federal officials who issue, sponsor, or hold significant financial interests in digital assets. The draft would also authorize state-level enforcement actions related to exchanges that list assets in violation of those prohibitions.

Covered individuals would be required to divest significant financial interests or place them into a qualified blind trust. The bill specifies penalties for violations: $500,000 or 20% of the amount received in the prohibited transaction, whichever is greater.

According to the revised text, the ethics provisions would generally take effect 360 days after enactment. The bill also allows for earlier implementation if implementing regulations are finalized sooner, which could accelerate compliance obligations for relevant officials and market actors tied to the rules.

The breadth of enforcement—particularly the involvement of state attorneys general and the link to exchange listing behavior—could raise practical questions for exchanges and compliance teams if the measure becomes law. Traders may also watch how regulators define “significant” interests and the operational steps required for public officials and their spouses.

The sponsors’ announcement ties the ethics package to negotiated language they say was agreed at the White House level.

Stablecoin yield restrictions hinge on deposit-loss findings

On stablecoins, the revised bill would require the Treasury Secretary to introduce rules aimed at restricting rewards if Treasury determines that community banks are losing deposits on a substantial scale. The authority would not last indefinitely: it would expire 18 months after the bill becomes law.

This structure suggests Congress is attempting to address potential stablecoin “yield” incentives that could affect bank deposits—while limiting how long the special regulatory lever remains available. The key uncertainty for market participants will be what Treasury considers a “substantial” deposit loss and how Treasury will measure it in practice.

BRCA updates expand exemptions and adjust references

The revised BRCA retains protections aimed at preventing digital-asset developers from being treated as money transmitters or financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act. The revision also extends the protections to miners and validators, which were previously excluded.

In addition to expanding who receives the BRCA-style safeguards, the revised text would remove references to Section 1960 of Title 18 of the US Code, which concerns prohibitions on unlicensed money transmitting businesses.

Other revisions in the updated draft would strengthen safeguards around affiliate trading and conflicts of interest at digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers. The bill also clarifies how consumer protection laws apply, signaling an effort to reduce ambiguity around enforcement and market conduct expectations.

These adjustments may matter for builders and network participants because they attempt to narrow the circumstances under which certain parties could face money-transmitter or financial-institution frameworks. Extending protections to miners and validators could reduce regulatory uncertainty for parts of network infrastructure that are often overlooked in traditional compliance debates.

Market odds reflect renewed attention, but the vote is still pending

While the procedural vote has not yet occurred, market-style betting odds have shifted. Polymarket odds for the CLARITY Act passing this year reached 35% on Monday, according to the Polymarket event page, and were described as the highest since late July.

Still, odds trading is not a substitute for Senate arithmetic. What matters most for investors and developers is whether Tuesday’s procedural step clears and whether the Senate can coalesce around the revised ethics and regulatory provisions without further changes.

All eyes will be on the exact mechanics of enforcement—especially how “significant” holdings are defined, how blind trusts are handled, and what Treasury ultimately uses as the threshold for stablecoin reward restrictions. Even with a “final offer” framing, the outcome of the procedural vote will determine how soon stakeholders can plan around a clearer regulatory pathway.

House tax writers have reportedly scheduled a Sept. 16 review of two bills that could change how U.S. miners, stakers and traders calculate federal taxes.

The House Ways and Means Committee plans to consider H.R. 9175 and H.R. 9172 on Wednesday. The committee’s public calendar had not posted a markup notice as of Sept. 14, leaving the meeting time and final bill list unconfirmed in official records.

The introduced bills address separate parts of the tax code. H.R. 9175 would create an optional income-deferral system for qualifying mining and staking rewards. H.R. 9172 would apply existing wash-sale and constructive-sale restrictions to covered digital assets.

A committee markup would allow lawmakers to debate, amend and vote on the legislation. Reports that Republicans may remove the mining deferral or limit it to five years have not been confirmed through a published committee amendment or substitute text.

Reported crypto tax markup remains off the calendar

Representatives Mike Carey and Jodey Arrington introduced the two bills on June 8. The Congressional Record confirms that both measures were referred to the Ways and Means Committee.

One day later, the committee held a legislative hearing covering those proposals and several other digital-asset tax measures. Witnesses included representatives from Fidelity, Coinbase and Coin Center, along with an NYU Tax Law Center official.

Committee Chairman Jason Smith presented the package as an attempt to give taxpayers clearer rules for digital assets. His statement argued that the existing framework had not kept pace with new financial technology. Such comments represent the committee majority’s policy position.

No official Sept. 16 notice appeared on the committee’s full committee page by Monday morning. Without a notice, the publicly available record does not confirm which measures will receive votes or what amendments members may offer.

The lack of a posted notice does not prove that the meeting will be canceled. It means the reported schedule remains provisional until the committee releases an agenda or another official announcement.

Mining tax bill offers an elective deferral

The Tax Clarity for Mining and Staking Act, H.R. 9175, would establish two possible tax treatments for qualifying newly created tokens.

Under the bill’s default rule, a taxpayer would include the token’s fair market value in ordinary income when acquiring it through mining, staking or another qualifying validation process. The recognized amount would become the taxpayer’s basis in the asset.

Eligible taxpayers could elect to postpone recognition for qualifying tokens received during the elected tax year. The election would continue in later years unless the taxpayer obtained Treasury approval to revoke it.

When an elected token was sold or otherwise disposed of, the taxpayer would recognize the deferred gain. The bill classifies that gain as arising from property that is not a capital asset, producing ordinary tax treatment under the proposed language. Certain acquisition costs would be capitalized while the election remained effective.

Current IRS guidance generally treats mining and staking rewards as ordinary income when taxpayers gain control of them. As crypto.news explained in its guide to IRS crypto tax rules in 2026, later disposals can generate a separate capital gain or loss based on the asset’s changed value.

H.R. 9175 would not make every token or taxpayer eligible. The introduced text contains restrictions involving controlled foreign corporations, passive foreign investment companies and several foreign ownership structures. It contains sourcing rules based partly on a taxpayer’s residence when the asset is acquired or disposed of.

Reports indicate that Republican lawmakers have discussed removing the deferral election or allowing it for only five years. Neither option appears in the introduced text, and no official amendment confirming either change had been published as of Sept. 14.

The nonpartisan Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that the introduced bill would reduce federal revenue by $2.956 billion between fiscal years 2026 and 2036.

Wash-sale bill targets rapid crypto repurchases

The Applying Existing Tax Anti-Abuse Rules to Digital Assets Act, H.R. 9172, would expand two rules currently associated mainly with stocks and securities. Section 1091 of the tax code generally disallows an immediate loss deduction when a taxpayer sells stock or securities and acquires substantially identical property within 30 days before or after the sale. The disallowed loss normally adjusts the basis of the replacement property instead of disappearing permanently.

H.R. 9172 would replace references to “stock or securities” with a new category of “specified assets.” Covered property would include most digital assets and certain contracts or options connected to them. Tokenized or wrapped products could qualify as substantially identical to economically equivalent underlying assets. The Treasury Department would receive regulatory authority covering contracts and other arrangements linked to specified assets.

Qualified U.S. dollar-denominated stablecoins would be excluded if they met the bill’s statutory requirements. The definition relies on permitted payment stablecoin issuers recognized under federal law. A dollar stablecoin may not qualify for the exclusion when the taxpayer uses another functional currency.

Certain tokens received through mining, staking or comparable validation activity receive a narrower exception. The introduced language addresses particular acquisitions within the wash-sale calculation; it does not remove all mined or staked tokens from every part of the bill.

The measure would separately extend constructive-sale rules under Section 1259 to digital assets. Existing constructive-sale rules can require recognition when transactions offset an appreciated position so completely that the taxpayer has effectively removed the economic exposure without formally selling the asset.

Crypto.news has previously reported that the statutory wash-sale rule does not currently cover cryptocurrency, allowing traders to sell a token at a loss and repurchase it without the same restriction that applies to covered securities.

The Joint Committee on Taxation estimated that H.R. 9172 would raise $2.074 billion over fiscal years 2026 through 2036. Earlier Treasury estimates cited for digital-asset wash-sale legislation covered different proposals and should not be treated as the official score for H.R. 9172.

Committee passage would begin another legislative stage

If the reported markup proceeds, committee members could approve the introduced bills, reject them or replace portions through amendments. The five-year mining deferral mentioned in press reports would require a formal amendment before becoming part of the legislation.

A favorable committee vote would permit the measures to be reported to the full House. Approval would not guarantee floor consideration because House leaders control the schedule, and no floor date has been announced. Any bill passed by the House would then require Senate approval. Differences between House and Senate versions would need to be resolved before identical legislation could reach the president.

The committee could combine the measures with other tax legislation during markup or at a later stage. Congress often moves tax provisions through larger packages, but no official document currently shows that either crypto proposal will be attached to another bill.

However, Until new committee text appears, the June versions remain the only verified legislative language. The committee had not published a chairman’s amendment, substitute text, meeting time or voting agenda for the reported Sept. 16 markup as of Sept. 14.

US Senate Republicans have released revised text of the CLARITY Act, aiming to win Democratic support ahead of a procedural vote scheduled for Tuesday at 2:15pm ET. The updated 635-page proposal, led by Senate Banking Digital Assets Subcommittee Chair Cynthia Lummis along with Chairs John Boozman and Tim Scott, makes notable changes to ethics rules for federal officials and expands related provisions touching stablecoin rules and the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA).

The bill’s timing is close: the procedural vote is intended to determine whether the Senate can move the measure toward floor consideration. Republican aides have characterized Sunday’s release as a “final offer” to Democrats, signaling a last round of adjustments before lawmakers decide whether the text can advance.

Key takeaways

• The revised CLARITY Act includes new ethics provisions that would restrict federal officials and their spouses from holding or engaging in certain significant digital-asset financial interests.
• State attorneys general would gain enforcement authority for those ethics-related restrictions, including rules against exchanges listing assets that violate the bans.
• Civil penalties in the ethics framework could reach $500,000 or 20% of the amount received in a prohibited transaction, whichever is greater.
• The updated BRCA would extend “safe harbor” style protections beyond prior exclusions to cover miners and validators, while removing references tied to unlicensed money-transmitting offenses.
• Stablecoin-related provisions would require Treasury to introduce restrictions on certain rewards if community banks are losing deposits at a substantial scale, with that authority set to expire 18 months after enactment.

Ethics provisions become the centerpiece of the final text

In explaining the revised draft, Lummis said the current language reflects a year of bipartisan negotiations and includes 126 changes made at the request of Democrats. Her statement also asserted that the ethics changes had been agreed to by President Donald Trump.

According to Lummis, the revised ethics rules are designed to address government participation in the digital-asset sector. Under the new framework, state attorneys general would be able to enforce prohibitions on covered federal officials—along with their spouses—issuing, sponsoring, or holding significant financial interests in digital assets, along with related restrictions connected to exchanges listing assets that would be in conflict with those bans.

The text also requires covered individuals to either divest significant financial interests or place them into a “qualified blind trust.” Penalties for violations are set at either $500,000 or 20% of the amount received in the prohibited transaction, whichever is greater. The ethics provisions are scheduled to take effect 360 days after enactment, though they could begin earlier if implementing regulations are finalized.

The procedural vote timing suggests the ethics overhaul is intended to reduce political friction around the bill’s advancement. If the Senate permits the measure to move forward, this would mark a shift from earlier drafts toward a tighter government-conflict approach that may be central to how Democrats evaluate the bill on the merits and on governance concerns.

Stablecoin yield rules: Treasury gets conditional authority

The revised proposal also revisits stablecoin oversight. Lummis said the Treasury Secretary would be required to develop rules limiting rewards, if Treasury determines that community banks are losing deposits on a substantial scale.

Importantly for industry participants, this authority would not be permanent. The power to impose those restrictions would expire 18 months after the bill becomes law, meaning any yield-related stablecoin restrictions would be time-bound unless Congress acts again or the rulemaking process produces continuing effects under other legal authorities.

For stablecoin issuers, exchanges, and other intermediaries, the key practical question will be how Treasury defines “substantial” deposit loss and what enforcement mechanism accompanies any reward limits. The bill text’s narrow trigger suggests targeted intervention rather than a broad, immediate crackdown, but the short expiration window may still concentrate risk and uncertainty into a relatively limited regulatory period.

BRCA revisions broaden protections for infrastructure actors

Beyond ethics and stablecoin provisions, the Senate’s updated CLARITY Act text modifies the BRCA. Lummis indicated the revised BRCA would keep protections intended to prevent developers from being treated as money transmitters or financial institutions under the Bank Secrecy Act.

In a change from earlier versions, the revised BRCA would extend those protections to miners and validators—groups previously excluded. That expansion matters because it shifts how certain participants in blockchain infrastructure might be evaluated under US anti-money-laundering and related compliance frameworks. While the precise boundaries of any safe harbor will depend on the final statutory language and follow-on rulemaking, the explicit inclusion of miners and validators is a significant narrowing of the government’s ability to characterize them as regulated financial intermediaries.

The updated BRCA would also remove references to Section 1960 of Title 18 of the US Code, which addresses prohibitions on unlicensed money transmitting businesses. Removing those references could affect how existing criminal and compliance interpretations are applied alongside the new regulatory structure described by the bill.

In addition, the revised proposal is described as including other changes aimed at conflict-of-interest and trading safeguards at digital commodity exchanges, brokers, and dealers, along with clarifying how consumer protection laws apply in the digital-asset context.

What happens next for the Senate

With Tuesday’s procedural vote approaching, the revised CLARITY Act text becomes the immediate focus for lawmakers assessing whether the Senate can move toward broader consideration. The most closely watched elements likely remain the ethics enforcement model—particularly the role of state attorneys general and the scope of the divestiture or blind trust requirement—as well as the BRCA’s expanded coverage for miners and validators and the time-limited stablecoin reward restrictions tied to Treasury’s community bank deposit findings.