Sen. Ruben Gallego said the Senate can still advance the Clarity Act despite an unresolved dispute over ethics rules governing public officials’ involvement in digital assets, placing the bill’s next procedural test on a narrow legislative timetable ahead of a scheduled Sept. 15 vote.
Speaking Wednesday at the SALT conference in Wyoming, the Arizona Democrat said negotiations over the final outstanding section of the package have repeatedly stalled at the White House. Several versions of proposed ethics language have been sent to President Donald Trump, Gallego said, but the proposals have either returned without edits, come back with weaker restrictions, or received no response.
The impasse centers on provisions designed to limit the ability of government officials and their families to issue, sponsor, or otherwise participate in digital-asset ventures. The debate has become closely linked to questions over Trump’s cryptocurrency-related holdings and business interests, which lawmakers involved in the talks have described as generating millions of dollars in income.
Gallego said the bill still has a route forward, but any Senate breakthrough requires 60 votes to overcome procedural barriers. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has scheduled an initial procedural vote for Sept. 15, giving negotiators only a limited period in Washington next month to resolve the remaining differences.
Ethics language remains the last major obstacle
The Clarity Act is intended to establish a federal framework for the digital-asset market, defining oversight responsibilities and setting rules that could give companies and users clearer guidance on how cryptocurrencies are regulated in the United States. Its ethics section has become the most politically sensitive part of the package because it would apply directly to elected officials and senior public employees.
According to Gallego, a version of the language accepted by Trump in July would prohibit a public official or employee, as well as their spouse, from issuing or sponsoring digital assets. That proposal would assign enforcement responsibility to the Department of Justice and would expire in January 2029.
A newer proposal advanced by Gallego and Sen. Thom Tillis, a North Carolina Republican, would also bar public officials and their spouses from issuing or sponsoring digital assets. Its main difference is enforcement: the Gallego-Tillis version would permit state attorneys general to enforce the prohibition.
That choice reflects a familiar dispute in federal legislation. Supporters of state enforcement often argue that it gives rules more practical reach and creates another avenue for action when federal agencies do not pursue a case. Opponents can view it as a source of uneven enforcement, potentially exposing national businesses and public figures to differing legal approaches across states.
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the status of the negotiations, according to the material provided.
A narrow window before the September vote
Thune’s Sept. 15 procedural vote does not itself guarantee passage of the Clarity Act. It would be an early test of whether Senate leaders can gather enough support to move the legislation through the chamber. Gallego’s reference to the 60-vote threshold indicates that support from both parties would be needed.
That requirement makes the ethics dispute harder to treat as a side issue. A provision targeting officeholders’ digital-asset activity could be central to winning support from senators who want market-structure legislation paired with rules addressing conflicts of interest. At the same time, the enforcement mechanism, the scope of covered family members, and the duration of any restrictions can alter the political coalition behind the wider bill.
The calendar adds pressure. Congress is expected to have only a few working weeks in Washington next month before competing priorities consume floor time. Any failure to settle the ethics provision before the procedural vote could force leaders to delay the measure, revise it again, or seek a smaller agreement that leaves the most contentious questions unresolved.
Other policy issues remain in the debate
Gallego also pointed to stablecoin yield and illicit-finance safeguards as other subjects that lawmakers are still discussing. Stablecoin yield generally refers to payments or rewards offered to holders of tokens designed to maintain a fixed value, commonly against the U.S. dollar. The issue has drawn scrutiny because yield-bearing arrangements can resemble bank deposits or investment products while operating through different legal and regulatory structures.
Questions around illicit activity likewise remain a recurring point in cryptocurrency legislation. Lawmakers seeking stronger safeguards typically focus on compliance obligations, monitoring tools, and the ability of authorities to identify and disrupt the use of digital assets in money laundering or other criminal conduct. The supplied remarks did not specify final language on either topic.
The unresolved issues show how the bill has expanded beyond a technical debate over which regulator oversees which corner of the crypto market. The legislation now combines market rules, consumer and business obligations, enforcement authority, and restrictions designed to prevent public office from being used alongside private token ventures.
For cryptocurrency businesses, a Senate advance would offer a clearer indication of how federal policymakers intend to divide oversight and define permitted activity. For lawmakers, the ethics section has become a test of whether that clarity can be enacted without carving out exceptions—or creating enforcement structures—that weaken confidence in the rules’ application to officials themselves.
With the Sept. 15 vote approaching, negotiations between the Senate and the White House will determine whether the Clarity Act reaches the floor as a bipartisan market-structure bill with an agreed ethics framework, or enters the fall session with its most politically difficult provision still unsettled.
For deeper context on Washington’s next moves, explore how crypto regulation in the US could evolve after the Clarity Act.
Disclaimer: The content on this page is provided for general informational purposes only and does not represent the views or financial advice of Toobit. We make no guarantees regarding the accuracy or completeness of this information and shall not be held liable for any errors, omissions, or outcomes resulting from its use. Investing in digital assets involves risk; users should independently evaluate their financial situation and the risks involved. For further details, please consult our Terms of Service and Risk Disclosure.
