CLARITY Act FAILS: Elizabeth Warren vs Crypto After Senate Showdown

SPEAKER_1 (0:00)

Welcome back to the Daily Crypto Deep Dive. The biggest crypto vote in Washington this year has just ended in defeat. The United States Senate has failed to advance the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, after supporters could not find the 60 votes required to move the legislation forward.

And before we go any further, there is an important distinction here. Senators were not actually voting today on whether to make the Clarity Act law.

This was a cloture vote on the motion to proceed. Essentially, a vote on whether the Senate should formally take the bill up, debate it, amend it, and move towards an eventual final vote. But in practical terms, this was enormous. Because if you cannot get 60 senators to agree to even continue debating perhaps the most important piece of crypto legislation America has attempted, getting the finished bill onto the president's desk becomes considerably harder. And tonight, they couldn't do it.

The result became inevitable once more than 40 senators had voted against advancing the bill, making the required 60 mathematically impossible. At the time of recording, the Senate's official roll call system had not yet published the final numerical tally. So rather than give you a number that might change, we'll stick with what is confirmed. Clarity failed its first major full Senate test. And the remarkable part is that the basic idea behind this legislation actually has considerably more bipartisan support than today's defeat would suggest. The House of Representatives passed the Original Clarity Act in July 2025 by 294 votes to 134

Earlier this year, the Senate Banking Committee advanced its version 15 votes to nine, with Democrats Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks joining Republicans. The fundamental objective is something the crypto industry has been screaming about for years. Tell everybody what the bloody rules actually are. Which digital assets fall primarily under the Securities and Exchange Commission? Which fall under the Commodity Futures Trading Commission? Which companies need to register? What disclosures are required?

How should spot digital commodity markets operate? What happens to DeFi?

What obligations apply to exchanges, brokers and developers? Instead of effectively deciding these questions one lawsuit at a time, Congress would finally create a statutory framework. That distinction is incredibly important. An SEC chairman can change. A CFTC chairman can change. A president can change. Agency guidance can change. Enforcement priorities can change. Federal legislation is much harder to simply tear up when a new administration walks through the door. And that is why today's defeat is frustrating for the industry. Because senators had spent more than a year negotiating this thing. Cynthia Lummis, John Boozman and Tim Scott released what they described as their final draft only yesterday. According to Lummis' office, Republicans had accepted 126 substantive changes requested by Democrats. 126 The final version introduced tougher ethics restrictions, expanded the role of state attorneys general in enforcement, included new protections designed to prevent stable coins draining deposits from community banks, and amended the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act to give software developers protection from being treated automatically as money transmitters simply because they wrote code. The revised bill also dealt more specifically with DeFi.

Protocols that are genuinely controlled by people or organizations could face registration and Bank Secrecy Act obligations, while simply publishing software would not automatically make somebody a regulated financial intermediary. So this was not the same bill that entered negotiations months ago.

It had been chopped, rewritten, compromised, and chopped again. Which brings us beautifully to Moonhead's favorite person in American politics, Elizabeth Warren. Yes, Moonhead, she's back, and Warren has been one of the loudest opponents of the Clarity Act throughout this entire process. Now it would be very easy on a crypto podcast to simply say Liz Warren hates crypto, Liz Warren helped kill the crypto bill, everybody boo Liz Warren and move along. But the truth is slightly more complicated than that. Warren's biggest argument during these final negotiations wasn't actually about whether XRP is a security or whether Coinbase should register with the CFTC.

It was about Donald Trump. Specifically, the enormous financial relationship between Trump, his family, and the crypto industry. The new Republican proposal attempted to address this. Senior public officials with significant interests in crypto businesses could be required to divest those interests or place them into blind trusts. Restrictions were added covering presidents, vice presidents, members of Congress, federal judges and spouses.

State attorneys general were also given an enforcement role. That was a significant concession. Warren's response? She called it a weak fig leaf.

Classic Liz. Her argument is that the restrictions still contain loopholes allowing Trump to benefit financially from businesses connected to World Liberty Financial, and that federal enforcement could ultimately still be influenced by officials appointed by the president himself. Warren has also focused heavily on World Liberty Trust Company, which received preliminary approval for a federal banking charter in August. She argues that allowing a sitting president to have substantial financial exposure to a crypto-related banking business, while simultaneously overseeing the regulators responsible for that industry, creates an obvious conflict of interest. She even attempted to advance separate legislation called the Ending Presidential Corruption in Banking Act to deal specifically with that problem.