The official scoreboard says 15 to 9. The scoreboard that decides the future of the CLARITY Act says 11 to 13.
On Thursday, May 14, 2026, the Senate Banking Committee approved in markup the Senate version of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act — the regulatory framework that aims to redesign the relationship between crypto, securities and commodities in the United States. All 13 Republicans voted in favor, accompanied by Democrats Ruben Gallego (Arizona) and Angela Alsobrooks (Maryland). The remaining Democrats, including ranking member Elizabeth Warren, voted no.
The result was expected. Three days earlier, when ABA, BPI and ICBA broke the Tillis-Alsobrooks agreement trying to reopen the yield gap, it became clear that the banking lobby was entering the markup already defeated on the reserve front — what remained was to operate behind the scenes of amendments. And that's where the real voting happened.
The Van Hollen amendment on ethics failed 11 votes to 13. This is the true headline of May 14. The provision would have officially prohibited senior Executive officials from maintaining active interests in digital assets during their term — read: would have directly hit the crypto ecosystem of the Trump family, including positions in $TRUMP, $MELANIA and the World Liberty Financial conglomerate. It was rejected by a narrower margin than the approval of the law itself.
Why does this matter? Because the markup was only the first room. The Senate floor — which needs 60 votes to overcome filibuster — is where seven uncommitted Democrats will decide whether the president signs CLARITY on July 4th, as the White House desires. And their trigger has a name: ethics.
Chapter 1 — Who crossed the aisle and at what price
Gallego and Alsobrooks did not vote "yes" without reservations. Both had publicly conditioned support on the inclusion of ethical guardrails addressing presidential conflict of interest — a condition that was not met by the time of voting. They voted in favor anyway. The reason is strategic: allowing the bill to advance enables negotiation on the floor, not in committee.
Gallego was explicit about what comes next. In a statement right after the vote, he left a public threat at the microphone directed at his own side:
"If this isn't resolved by the time we vote on the floor, like I've done in the past, I'm not afraid to vote no."
The statement is the key to reading the week. The Arizona Democrat — one of the five senators most aligned with the crypto agenda by Cedar Innovation Foundation calculations — is saying that the committee's "yes" was conditional, and his floor vote depends on what happens with ethics over the next six weeks.
Alsobrooks adopted a similar stance. The Maryland senator negotiated directly with Thom Tillis (R-NC) the final version of the yield agreement that the Tillis-Alsobrooks agreement consolidated in April — and that the banking lobby tried to reopen during markup week, without success. That agreement is stable. Ethics is not.
Tim Scott's calculation
Committee Chair Tim Scott (R-SC) conducted the markup with the sole objective of getting the text out of the room. To do this, he blocked votes on amendments he deemed problematic — on the grounds of "technical drafting errors". At least two relevant amendments fell through this filter: one that would have reopened discussion of disguised yield in stablecoin rewards programs (target of the banking lobby) and another that expanded restrictions on DeFi infrastructure. Both would have redone the stitching that the BlackRock comment letter to the OCC tried to consolidate in parallel, on the tokenized reserve front.
The reading is clear: what survived the markup is exactly the package that benefits the BlackRock-Circle-Tether trilogy. The gaps of yield reformatted as payment-rail rewards, the favorable delimitation between security and commodity, the "narrow" treatment for non-custodial DeFi — all of it passed.
Chapter 2 — The Van Hollen card and the 11-13
Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) entered the markup with the amendment that would be the highest trench of the day. The text, presented on two pages, barred Executive Power officials at cabinet level and above — including the president, vice president, secretaries and attorney general — from maintaining active economic interests in individual tokens issued by entities under SEC or CFTC jurisdiction, during their term.
The target was obvious. The Trump family, according to public statements and Office of Government Ethics reports, maintains positions in the presidential token $TRUMP, the $MELANIA token, and participation in World Liberty Financial — a DeFi protocol that launched the WLFI token in 2024 and the USD1 stablecoin in 2025. The Van Hollen amendment would have forced divestment, or denied regulatory protection to the ecosystem while it remained in force.
It failed 11 to 13. Two Democrats were absent from the vote, and Gallego and Alsobrooks — the same ones who crossed over to support the bill — voted against the amendment. The justification, in both cases, was procedural: the amendment would create jurisdictional conflict with the ethics package under discussion in the Senate Government Affairs Committee, and therefore should be treated in a standalone bill, not within CLARITY.
It's the same maneuver that killed the Warren amendment on conflict-of-interest disclosure last May during GENIUS Act markup. The difference is that now the argument doesn't stick as easily — the window for a standalone ethics bill in a midterm year is practically nonexistent.
Why 11-13 is more dangerous for CLARITY than 15-9
A two-vote margin on an amendment means that ethics has 11 guaranteed votes against the bill in plenary if it enters as a filibuster. Each Banking Committee Democrat who rejected Van Hollen can change position on the floor — because the calculation there is not committee-based, it's about coalitions to overcome 60. And seven of the Democrats needed for 60 depend exactly on this issue.
Chapter 3 — Warren frames the process
Elizabeth Warren, ranking member of the committee, voted against the bill with the most structural justification of the day. At the microphone:
"I am deeply concerned that law enforcement officials [...] [and] community banks are going to hear this and wonder why their point of view simply couldn't be heard."
The statement stitches together two axes that Warren has been working since the first draft: law enforcement (FinCEN, OFAC, FBI cyber) has technical complaints about CLARITY's treatment of KYC rules on self-custody wallets — overlap with the FinCEN-OFAC regime that came into force with the GENIUS Act — and community banks, represented by ICBA, have commercial complaints about the thesis that stablecoin with rewards program doesn't compete with deposits.
This second axis is the same one the ABA-BPI-ICBA trio tried — and failed — to reopen three days earlier. The fact that the complaint remains even after the banking lobby's defeat signals that the issue will return in plenary via a Brown or Reed amendment, not through Tillis-Alsobrooks anymore.
Chapter 4 — The seven Democrats who decide July 4th
For CLARITY to reach the president's desk on July 4th, three things need to happen in sequence: (a) Banking and Agriculture reconcile their versions in unified text; (b) the majority leader schedules floor time; (c) the bill gets 60 votes in plenary, overcoming filibuster.
The first is technically staff work and should be resolved in two to three weeks. The second depends on the Senate calendar and space between the NDAA budget and recess. The third is where everything is decided.
The 53 Republicans vote yes. Gallego and Alsobrooks are already in yes — under the condition Gallego left at the microphone. Five more Democrats are needed. The names circulating in Banking Committee and Democratic leadership calculations:
- Kirsten Gillibrand (NY) — author of the Lummis-Gillibrand Responsible Financial Innovation Act, a framework favorable to the crypto industry since 2022. Probable vote.
- Mark Warner (VA) — intelligence hawk, will condition support on safeguards against Lazarus Group and DPRK. Negotiating.
- Cory Booker (NJ) — historically skeptical, but pressured by NJ's digital economy. Undecided.
- Chris Coons (DE) — technical vote, will go where leadership directs. Biden ally, now Schumer ally.
- Raphael Warnock (GA) — pressured by Georgia's Democratic base, recently elected. Resistant.
Five names, seven votes to win counting Gallego and Alsobrooks as conditional. The ethics trench is the pressure point for all of them. Gillibrand can accept a diluted version; Warner demands cybersecurity; Booker and Warnock will need leadership cover; Coons will go where Schumer is.
Chapter 5 — The House and the July 2025 version
Even if CLARITY passes the Senate in June with 60 votes, there's still the stage that few are looking at: reconciliation with the House version.
The House of Representatives approved HR 3633 in July 2025, which is a different version of CLARITY on three structural points:
- Stablecoin yield — HR 3633 left room for more aggressive rewards programs; the Senate version applies the Tillis-Alsobrooks stitching that closed that door.
- DeFi treatment — HR 3633 has a broader definition of "non-custodial software"; the Senate version is more restrictive.
- Ethics — absent in HR 3633, open in the Senate version.
Scenarios: (a) the House accepts the Senate text entirely, which requires Republican discipline and demands that Mike Johnson coordinate the base; (b) they go to conference, and the final text is voted on again in both chambers. The first is feasible in two weeks; the second consumes four to six. The July 4th goal assumes the first path.
Chapter 6 — What survives from the 196-197-198 trilogy
The May 14 markup retrospectively confirmed what the ON3X trio of stories published between May 9-11 already signaled. Worth revisiting.
The BlackRock comment letter to the OCC, with 17 pages and seven demands, attacked the 20% ceiling on tokenized reserves in the GENIUS Act NPRM — a gap that, if it survives, saves the $2.6 billion BUIDL. That gap remains open after CLARITY markup, because the Senate text doesn't touch reserve parameters (which live in GENIUS, not CLARITY).
The ABA-BPI-ICBA trio tried to reopen the yield gap on May 9, lost by exclusion of corresponding amendments in the markup. The Tillis-Alsobrooks stitching remains: stablecoin is payment rail, not checking account, and rewards programs have a separate non-yield regime.
The Arc presale, with $222 million at $3 billion FDV and a16z leading alongside BlackRock-Apollo-ICE-Standard Chartered, positioned Circle for a regulatory approval window that effectively opened. Verticalization of tokenized dollars now encounters not only the GENIUS Act, but also the Senate CLARITY — and the gap continues to pass through.
Chapter 7 — The Lagarde counterpoint
While Washington advances 15-9, Europe reacts in the opposite direction. Christine Lagarde's statement in Madrid, on May 8, explicitly endorsed the Central Bank of Brazil's crackdown on dollar stablecoins via Resolution 561. The ECB-BCB axis forms as geopolitical response: on-chain dollar is asymmetric weapon, and the EU won't stand by.
If CLARITY is signed on July 4th, the regulatory gap between the US and EU becomes definitive. The universe of $321 billion in stablecoins gains stable jurisdiction in the US and effective prohibition of cross-border use in Brazil and heavy MiCA rule in Europe. The asymmetry is not a bug — it's architecture.
The ON3X perspective
Three readings for the 15-9 markup and what it means for the next 51 days until July 4th.
1. The 11-13 of the Van Hollen amendment is the next trench, not the 15-9 of the bill. CLARITY's approval in committee was expected and was delivered. The vote that decides the floor's pace is ethics — and in it, two Democrats who voted for the bill voted against the amendment. This means the bargaining terrain of the floor is precisely delimited: either Republicans give in a symbolic ethics package to unlock Gillibrand/Booker/Warnock, or the bill stalls in filibuster and kills the July 4th goal.
2. The banking lobby lost twice, but the yield war is not over. The Tillis-Alsobrooks agreement survived the break of May 9 and attempts to reopen via amendment on May 14. The definition of stablecoin as payment rail is consolidated. But amendments from Brown and Reed on community-bank protection and overlap with the FinCEN-OFAC regime will come to the floor. The banking lobby won't die — it will change tactics.
3. The BlackRock-Circle-Tether trilogy emerges victorious. Tokenized reserve keeps NPRM gap open in GENIUS, yield is locked down the way the trio wanted, securities/commodities classification comes out favorable for institutional issuers, non-custodial DeFi gets narrow treatment. Senate CLARITY is, in practice, the package that verticalizes on-chain dollar through the tokenized treasury door — exactly the path that BSTBL and BRSRV announced on May 8. The May 14 markup didn't inaugurate anything — it sealed it.
July 4th is a political goal. Ethics is the only thing between that goal and the 60 votes needed. And the 11-13 scoreboard — that no one saw — says exactly where the next fight will happen.