US prosecutors propose changes to CLARITY as voting window narrows: Report
Reported by Cointelegraph · AI-assisted summary by ChikoCorp AI News Desk
AI-assisted summary based on the linked source. Verify market-moving details at the original publisher before acting.
US law enforcement organizations, including the National Association of Assistant US Attorneys and the National District Attorneys Association, have proposed changes to the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act, a comprehensive cryptocurrency market structure bill currently under Senate consideration. Their suggestions, communicated in a letter to the White House, focus on provisions related to developers in the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) component of CLARITY. Specifically, they requested that guidelines concerning developers should not create, expand, or modify criminal liability under federal law.
White House crypto adviser Patrick Witt responded to these proposed changes by stating that the provisions were "not even close" to the previous Trump administration's position and suggested that the proposals were not the result of "productive negotiations." Meanwhile, Senator Catherine Cortez Masto has reportedly urged the White House to address the BRCA before any potential vote on the bill. The legislation is facing opposition from Democrats, partly due to ethics rules involving then-President Donald Trump’s crypto investments, which reportedly earned him $1.4 billion in 2025.
The Senate’s timeframe to pass the CLARITY Act is narrowing ahead of a month-long recess from August 7 to September 14, which coincides with preparations for the 2026 midterm elections. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has not scheduled a vote before the recess and has indicated that procedural requirements would make it very difficult to complete the voting process on contested bills like CLARITY without unanimous consent. If passed, the bill could shift regulatory authority over digital assets from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), even though both agencies currently face staffing challenges in their leadership ranks.
This development matters because it reflects ongoing debates over how best to regulate the rapidly evolving cryptocurrency market in the US, balancing enforcement capabilities with protections for developers. The changes proposed by law enforcement advocates, the mixed political support, and the tight legislative timeline all underscore the complexities and uncertainties in finalizing the CLARITY Act.