- The CLARITY Act has passed the House Agriculture Committee with a bipartisan 47–6 vote
- The bill has hit a roadblock in the House Financial Services Committee, however, which is still debating amendments
- The Act has drawn sharp Democratic scrutiny over regulatory scope, DeFi loopholes, and potential conflicts of interest
The House Agriculture Committee yesterday advanced the CLARITY Act with a firm 47–6 tally, although it faces a sterner test before it can progress. The House Financial Services Committee is still debating the merits of the Act, with lawmakers hashing out amendments on ethics, anti‑money‑laundering, and the roles of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) versus the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Critics, particularly Democrats, have raised concerns over potential deregulation, DeFi loopholes, and even presidential self‑enrichment, meaning it will require some serious rewriting to obtain their votes.
Ag Committee’s Clear Signal
The CLARITY Act, introduced on May 29 by Rep. French Hill and co‑sponsors, draws inspiration from the FIT21 framework and imposes a three‑tier classification for digital assets: centralized “investment contract assets” under SEC oversight, mature “digital commodities” under the CFTC, and consumer‑facing stablecoins regulated in a lighter regime. It sets clear lines between SEC and CFTC jurisdiction, protecting self‑custody and DeFi activities, and creating a regulated environment for banks to participate in the crypto market.
On Tuesday morning, the House Agriculture Committee delivered a decisive vote of 47 in favor, six opposed, to advance the CLARITY Act out of committee, with Chair G.T. Thompson stating it would be sent to the full House, allowing dissenters to submit views by Friday. Digital Assets Subcommittee Chair Bryan Steil (R‑WI) promptly opened the Financial Services markup by declaring, “I feel optimistic that we can move forward.”
Financial Services: A Tougher Test
Despite this optimism, the bill has encountered heightened scrutiny in the House Financial Services Committee, where Democrats have introduced amendments targeting presidential financial entanglements and bailouts. They have also questioned broad DeFi exemptions, with Rep. Sam Liccardo (D‑CA) challenging the criteria for defining decentralized finance:
What if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but we’re calling it DeFi?
Meanwhile, Maxine Waters and Brad Sherman (D-CA) pressed for ethics safeguards regarding President Trump’s crypto interests and anti-bailout language, though neither amendment passed. Observers noted that the Agriculture Committee was more comfortable granting the CFTC room in digital market regulation, where broader consensus exists, while the Financial Services Committee tends to wield stricter oversight over Wall Street and SEC-related markets, making crypto legislation inherently more contested there.
What Next?
The bill must overcome this stalemate and pass both committees in order to move to the full House, but given the depth of debate and potential late-night sessions expected in Financial Services, passage is far from assured. House Financial Services Chair French Hill emphasized the bill seeks clarity and not personal ethics reform, stating, “This bill is not about the personal finances of any one individual… It’s not an ethics bill.”
As the CLARITY Act awaits its fate on the Financial Services side, it is clear that even a landslide win in one committee doesn’t guarantee easy sailing through the next.
