The CLARITY Act Senate vote is stalling behind a Democratic ethics bloc that has enough votes to kill the bill unless conflict-of-interest language covering the president and Congress is written into the final text.
Senators Chris Murphy, Jeff Merkley and Chris Van Hollen went public with their opposition at a 14 July press conference organised by Americans for Financial Reform and Indivisible. Senator Elizabeth Warren has separately staked out the same position.
Murphy put the dollar figure at the centre of his argument, claiming Trump had earned $1.4 billion from crypto in 2025. He said: ‘There is no reason to pass a new regulatory system for crypto if this system does not stop Trump’s corruption.’ Trump has rejected allegations of wrongdoing involving his digital asset interests, which include his memecoin and the World Liberty Financial project.
Actor and author Ben McKenzie also spoke at the press conference. He said: ‘The CLARITY Act is meant to provide regulatory clarity around cryptocurrencies, yet it contains no ethics provisions that could prevent, or even reduce, President Trump’s corruption in crypto.’
Warren framed the broader situation as ‘brazen financial corruption,’ according to CoinTelegraph reporting.
What the Ethics Bloc Actually Wants
The senators are not opposing crypto legislation in principle. Their demand is specific: enforceable ethics language before any vote.
Merkley has called for restrictions covering the president, vice president, Cabinet officials, members of Congress and their immediate families. Van Hollen went further, introducing an amendment during Senate Banking Committee consideration that would prohibit the president, members of Congress or their families from owning, promoting or affiliating with digital asset issuers or platforms, according to his official press release.
Van Hollen also wants stronger consumer protection and anti-crime provisions before he can back the bill. Murphy’s position is similar: no new regulatory framework without rules that prevent officials from profiting from the sector they regulate.
The CLARITY Act Senate Vote Arithmetic
The bill requires 60 votes, which means Republicans need at least seven or eight Democrats to cross over, per Yahoo News reporting. Murphy, Merkley, Van Hollen and Warren have already formed a public opposition bloc capable of blocking passage if the bill moves without ethics language.
Senate Majority Leader John Thune has committed to a vote before the August recess but has not locked in an exact date. The press conference organisers listed 20 July as the expected vote date; Thune only confirmed action before the break. The Senate’s state work period begins 10 August, leaving 7 August as the final scheduled session day. As of 15 July, no CLARITY Act vote appeared on the public Senate floor schedule.
The House passed the bill on 17 July 2025 by a 294-134 vote, with 78 House Democrats joining all Republicans in favour, according to The Hill. That House coalition does not directly translate to Senate arithmetic.
The legislation (H.R. 3633), sponsored by House Financial Services Committee Chairman French Hill, was referred to the Senate Committee on Banking, Housing, and Urban Affairs after House passage. The Senate Banking Committee reported the bill with an amendment in the nature of a substitute on 1 June 2026, with Senator Tim Scott listed as the reporting senator, without a written report.
The measure would split digital asset oversight between the SEC and CFTC while setting registration and custody rules for crypto firms. Three policy disputes are running in parallel: ethics rules, protections for non-custodial developers, and whether crypto platforms may offer yield tied to stablecoin balances.
The National Organisation of Black Law Enforcement Executives and the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association have both backed the bill. The latter also requested tighter DeFi accountability rules and language preserving federal investigative powers.
Galaxy Digital analysts put the bill’s passage odds at 50%, noting it needs to clear Congress before autumn elections or risk being shelved ‘for the long haul,’ per Incrypted. The ethics carve-out language is now the single variable that determines which side of that coin flip the bill lands on.
