Skip to content
Project 2025
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories
U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN)

Trump’s Plan to Strip Rep. Omar of Her Citizenship Is Unconstitutional and a Threat to All of Us

JD Vance

JD Vance Tells Republicans Who America’s Real Birthright Citizens Are

Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Sue New York After Being Denied the Right to Vote

Veterans of Iraq and Afghanistan Wars Sue New York After Being Denied the Right to Vote

If It Quacks Like a Fascist

If It Quacks Like a Fascist

Group of voters stand in line

Six Key Voting Blocs Hold the Balance of Power on Nov. 3

The CLARITY Act

News

White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

The CLARITY Act crypto bill failed a procedural vote on Sept. 15, but it could return. Here's what it does, who would regulate crypto, and the Trump angle.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images
Amy West
By Amy WestOct 02, 2026
Amy West
Amy West is a contributor for The Fulcrum, a nonpartisan publication dedicated to strengthening democracy by fostering informed civic engagement and elevating diverse perspectives.
See More Writings by author

The CLARITY Act

The CLARITY Act, which failed in a procedural vote on Sept. 15, and a new venture by the Trump family’s World Liberty Financial cryptocurrency company made us think it was time to write about the cryptocurrency legislation. Even though it’s not currently active, the bill could come back.

What does the CLARITY Act do?

The CLARITY Act sets up a regulatory structure for cryptocurrency or digital assets. The latest version of the bill defines a digital asset as “any digital representation of value which is recorded on a cryptographically-secured distributed ledger or other similar technology.” In other words, Blockchain-based cryptocurrencies, stablecoins, and other similar technologies meant to be used as money or investments.

Why do we need any laws about crypto at all?

Right now, there is no comprehensive regulatory structure for cryptocurrency. The CLARITY Act “aims to establish rules governing how digital assets are issued, traded, intermediated, and supervised across the U.S. financial system.”

A major point of contention between legislators within each chamber of Congress and between chambers is how to divide (or if it should be divided at all) oversight between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodities Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). The SEC is much larger than the CFTC and has a reputation for more aggressive oversight than the CFTC. This version of the CLARITY Act gives the CFTC more power than the SEC. But at the same time, “The division would not assign every [cryptocurrency type] permanently to one agency. Classification would depend on the asset’s legal rights, offering structure, network development, issuer involvement, and the activity being regulated, which could leave some questions of regulatory authority involving both the SEC and the CFTC.”

What else is in those 600+ pages?

Punchbowl noted that the current version of the CLARITY Act includes a change to an existing law that would allow for criminal prosecutions related to blockchain issues. Specifically, “A key change would no longer explicitly shield certain decentralized finance developers from 18 USC 1960, the part of the federal criminal code that prohibits unlicensed money transmission. The liability protections are now civil, rather than criminal.”

This provision might be good for users of crypto, but is not popular with developers.

Punchbowl also says “Another provision directs the Treasury secretary to monitor for signs of bank deposit flight tied to stablecoin rewards 18 months after the enactment of the law. “ This is an attempt to address worries of (among others) community banks. NPR described the concerns of community banks in an article yesterday.

Trump and Crypto

President Trump has made truly staggering amounts of money ($1.4 billion reported for 2025) off of his own cryptocurrency and related digital assets through his family-owned World Liberty Financial. Would the CLARITY Act prevent him from further enriching himself while in office?

The answer here tends to depend on who you ask and which party they belong to. The Associated Press reported on September 14 that “Trump agreed to new ethics rules to get a crypto bill across the line”.

However, as Judd Legum of Popular Information noted, the CLARITY Act grandfathers in Trump’s existing business interests.

Nor does it appear to address a move also reported Monday morning by the Washington Sun in which wallets matching known holdings of President Trump and his sons were moved into “vesting contracts”. These contracts require that no sales occur for at least two years, e.g. the end of the President’s legally final term as president. Presumably, because the President already has these tokens and the CLARITY Act grandfathers in existing cryptocurrency ownership, nothing in this move would be affected by the law should it ever pass.

The current version of the CLARITY Act was apparently weak enough with respect to banking industry concerns for four Republicans to join all Democrats in voting no on a procedural vote that, for now, brings progress on the CLARITY Act to a halt.

What does that mean for you if you have opinions about the CLARITY Act?

There’s more time to learn about cryptocurrency if you need to, about the bill if you need to and to contact your members of Congress if you have concerns. You can get contact information for your members from the GovTrack homepage.


The CLARITY Act was originally published by GovTrack and is republished with permission.


Latest news

Hands raised in the air, holding each other.​
Ethics & Leadership

Land of the Free, Home of the Brave? How Trump Is Destroying America's Soul

US Flag
Bridging & Common Ground

This Country ’Tis of Thee Calls America to Unite Again

U.S. President Donald Trump greets Russian President Vladimir Putin in front of a landed airplane.
Ethics & Leadership

What Would Putin’s Puppet Do Differently?

Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
​U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth

U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth testifies during a Senate Committee on Appropriations hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C., on July 21, 2026. Hegseth is crafting a strong and masculine identity for his audience as he reportedly contemplates a presidential run.

(Alex Wroblewski/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Politicians Can’t Just ’Give the People What They Want’

For reasons that will baffle my many detractors, I am often asked for advice about being an opinion journalist. One of my standard responses is: You have to be willing to disappoint your biggest fans.

What I mean is that if you start to see your job as telling fans what they want to hear, you risk becoming an entertainer rather than a thinker, and eventually you become a caricature. I’ve seen it happen numerous times. Patrick Buchanan was a brilliant columnist and a serious person. But over the course of his career, he listened too much to the people who said, “Go Pat, go!” and too little to friends who said, “I think that’s taking it too far.”

Keep ReadingShow less
White marble exterior of the United States Capitol, often called the Capitol Building, is the home of the United States Congress and the seat of the legislative branch of the U.S. federal government

Congress approval is at a record-low 10%. Moderation and consensus-building, not partisan theatrics, are how Washington gets problems solved.

Richard Sharrocks / Getty Images

Reclaiming the Politics of the Possible

Washington is stuck in a cycle of performative conflict. The incentives seem to reward outrage, not outcomes that last; purity tests, not problem‑solving. So it’s no surprise that after three shutdowns in less than a year, public approval of Congress collapsed to just 10 percent this spring. (Gallup, April 2026.) But the country we live in — where many middle-income families report persistent financial strain and businesses are navigating unprecedented technological upheaval — cannot be governed by theatrics. Breaking this cycle requires moderation, consensus‑building, and a cooperative approach to governance.

This is not a call for centrism as an ideology. Instead, this is a call for transformative leaders to embrace moderation as their governing strategy, recognizing that in a pluralistic country of nearly 350 million people durable solutions require broad and stable alliances. Ultimately, this is a call for the 240 million of us who are eligible to vote in November to elect consensus-builders instead of bomb-throwers, and healers instead of arsonists.

Keep ReadingShow less
Adult man holds a microphone while asking a question during a town hall meeting.

Congress ignored 90% of public support for background checks. Learn how citizen assemblies and sortition helped Ireland break gridlock and could work in the US.

SDI Productions/Getty Images

Consensus Without Power: How Sortition Could Break America's Legislative Gridlock

In April 2013, four months after the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting killed twenty children, the US Senate voted on the Manchin-Toomey Act to expand background checks and to include gun-show and internet sales of firearms. Roughly nine in ten Americans, including a majority of gun owners, supported the bill—a figure that has held steady across more than a decade of polling. It fell short of the 60-vote threshold by six votes. This was not an outlier. On complex issues, representatives often fail to translate public consensus into reality. Research shows that legislators consistently vote in line with donor and interest group preferences over constituent opinion. Before the vote, the National Rifle Association (NRA) warned every senator it would “rate” their vote on its annual rating system, and a low NRA rating could cost senators their next primary. Consequently, the bill died 54-46, and the majority of Americans watched, powerless, as their consensus was overridden by self-interested representatives.

Liberal democracies need a method to bypass electoral incentives that run counter to public opinion. One already exists: Ireland faced the same stalemate on complex issues before it instituted a process called sortition. The beauty of sortition lies in its removal of the primary pressure that misaligns representatives’ interests from public interest: reelection. Much like jury duty, citizens are randomly drawn from the population. An independent body then stratifies the pool, so the final group mirrors the country by age, gender, geography, and income. The group meets over weeks or months, hearing from experts and the public, as well as debating frequently. At the end, it issues a recommendation that parliament may then put to a referendum or pass into law.

Keep ReadingShow less
© Copyright 2026