Bessent Slams CLARITY Act Critics, Demands Senate Action Now
Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent sharply defended the CLARITY Act on July 30, rejecting claims that the bill weakens consumer protections and urging the Senate to bring the legislation to a vote immediately. He argued that the bill represents a bipartisan framework that has already passed the House and undergone extensive negotiations, and that Senate Republicans have a floor-ready product awaiting a vote.
Bessent criticized Democratic opposition, accusing Senate Democrats of choosing politics over American leadership in digital assets. He warned that failure to approve the bill would push the industry overseas and undermine U.S. competitiveness. Responding to allegations of insufficient consumer protections, Bessent maintained that Titles II and III of the CLARITY Act would strengthen compliance obligations for digital asset intermediaries, subjecting them to standards comparable to traditional financial institutions. He also defended the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act, which codifies Treasury policy that noncustodial software developers are not subject to Bank Secrecy Act registration. Bessent noted that the Fraternal Order of Police now supports the revised bill, indicating law enforcement concerns were addressed.
The bill faces growing political pressure. Seven Democratic senators continue seeking stronger provisions, and Galaxy Research lowered its passage probability estimate from 50% to 30%. Stand With Crypto plans to score every senator’s vote, and polling shows nearly 70% of crypto owners consider digital asset policy when choosing candidates. The Senate has a narrow window before its August recess to pass the legislation.
Updated legislative text released by Senator Cynthia Lummis on July 22 establishes registration pathways for digital asset firms, divides oversight between the SEC and CFTC, and addresses self-custody, stablecoins, and bankruptcy treatment. The Senate Banking Committee advanced the bill by a bipartisan 15-9 vote on May 14.
Bessent concluded by framing the decision as a defining choice for U.S. competitiveness, stating: ‘America will lead or America won’t. It’s not more complicated than that.’