Progress on the CLARITY bill, designed to comprehensively regulate digital asset markets in the United States, is unlikely to advance in the Senate Banking Committee before April. The delay is not just the result of technical disputes; shifting political priorities and a crowded legislative calendar are also major contributing factors.
Legislative Priorities and the White House’s Influence
Senate Majority Leader John Thune has made it clear that the CLARITY bill will not move ahead of other pending legislation, which the leadership currently views as more urgent. President Donald Trump has reportedly made the SAVE America voter identification initiative a prerequisite for all new legislation to be presented to him, further complicating the bill’s path. Thus, the Banking Committee has no immediate plans to schedule a session on the CLARITY bill, and no progress is expected before April.
Different Speeds Across Congressional Committees
Known formally as the Digital Asset Market Structure Bill, CLARITY is progressing at varying speeds across congressional committees. The House of Representatives passed its version in mid-2025 with broad bipartisan backing. However, the Senate Agriculture Committee advanced its own version early in 2026, but the vote was deeply divided along party lines. The Banking Committee subsequently postponed its planned January 2026 session, leaving the bill in limbo. The pending session remains the main obstacle to bringing the legislation to the Senate floor.
Stablecoin Yields Remain a Source of Tension
Another major stumbling block is the ongoing disagreement within the industry over stablecoin yield offerings. The potential for stablecoin-based returns has pitted traditional banks against the crypto sector, with banks warning that interest-bearing stablecoins could trigger a shift of deposits away from traditional banking and into digital assets. The prospect of high-yield stablecoin products eroding banks’ competitiveness has become a particular point of concern.
Senators Angela Alsobrooks and Thom Tillis are working toward a compromise that would distinguish between passive interest payments and rewards based on specific user actions. However, there is little clarity—both among lawmakers and in the industry itself—on the legal and economic implications of such a distinction. For now, negotiations between the parties remain inconclusive.
Market Players and JPMorgan Expect Regulatory Certainty
Despite repeated setbacks, optimism persists among stakeholders that a regulatory framework will eventually be established. According to research from JPMorgan, the bill’s passage—most likely in the second half of 2026—could serve as a catalyst for significant institutional investment. The legislation aims to clarify whether digital assets are to be classified as securities or commodities, and designate which agencies will regulate specific market activities. This regulatory clarity is seen as a prerequisite for major capital groups to participate meaningfully in the market.
In essence, recent developments have delayed rather than dampened expectations for clear regulations. If the Banking Committee reschedules discussions for April or May and the House and Senate can reconcile their drafts over the summer, the bill could still reach the president’s desk before the end of 2026. However, each month of delay increases the risk of additional political obstacles emerging and further complicating the legislative process.
