🏛️ Crypto Bill Update: Everything Is Happening at Once—But Can Senate Get to 60 Votes?

The crypto policy landscape is moving at breakneck speed—but lawmakers are running out of time. With Senate recess beginning next week and critical votes still uncertain, the industry finds itself in a high-stakes game of hurry up and wait.

Eleanor Tourett, one of Washington's most plugged-in crypto policy voices, joined The Rollup from Las Vegas to break down the chaotic procedural battle unfolding in the Senate. From ethics provisions targeting President Trump's memecoin ventures to the contentious Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA), several key issues remain unresolved—and time is running out.

⏳ The Senate Clock Is Ticking

The legislative calendar is not on crypto's side. Senate Majority Leader John Thune must call a vote to invoke cloture—a procedural mechanism requiring 60 votes—to move the Clarity Act forward. If successful, the bill proceeds to a motion to proceed, followed by an amendment process, and then another round of procedural hurdles.

Each step comes with mandatory waiting periods, including 30-hour windows built into Senate rules. With recess looming and only days left on the calendar, lawmakers face a critical decision: stay in session past the August break or let the bill die on the vine.

There is precedent for extending session for major legislation—reconciliation bills and government funding packages have prompted similar extensions in the past—but this would be a first for a crypto-focused bill.

"If leader Thune calls a vote, it becomes a forcing function. It forces everyone to come to the table on the issues we keep hearing about—ethics, BRCA, staking provisions—all of it."

🚨 Ethics Language: The Trump Memecoin Problem

The ethics provisions remain the single biggest flashpoint in negotiations. The core issue? How to prevent sitting government officials—including President Trump—from profiting off crypto ventures while in office.

President Trump has reportedly made over a billion dollars in the past 18 months, much of it tied to his memecoin and his involvement in World Liberty Financial, a platform run by his son. This has created an unprecedented regulatory challenge with no historical blueprint.

The current proposal, drafted by Senate Republicans and based on a framework sent over by the White House, includes the following:

• 🚫 Prohibition on issuing or sponsoring digital assets for members of Congress, government officials, the president, the vice president, their spouses, and immediate family members while in office
• ⏱️ A sunset clause ending in 2029, ensuring the restrictions do not extend beyond Trump's presidency
• ⚖️ Enforcement authority granted to the Department of Justice (DOJ) to sue over ethics violations

Democrats, however, argue this language does not go far enough. Their key demand? Give state attorneys general the power to sue the DOJ to enforce ethics lapses. Republicans and the White House are firmly opposed, fearing an avalanche of lawsuits from Democratic state AGs like New York's Letitia James, who has already launched multiple crypto-related enforcement actions.

Senator Tom Tillis is leading negotiations with Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona to find a compromise. But any deal must still be approved by the White House—and if Trump doesn't sign off, there's no bill.

"State AGs have taken it upon themselves to sue because they feel like they have autonomous power. If you give them this tool, you have to think about what happens when the shoe is on the other foot."

💻 BRCA: Protecting Code Writers or Shielding Criminals?

If ethics is the political minefield, the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act (BRCA) is the technical battleground. Introduced by House Majority Whip Tom Emmer, BRCA aims to protect blockchain developers and software engineers from criminal liability if their code is used for illicit purposes—such as money laundering by bad actors in North Korea.

The bill would ensure that simply writing and publishing code does not make developers criminally liable for how that code is later used. This protection is critical for the industry, which has seen high-profile prosecutions like those of Roman Storm (Tornado Cash) and the Samourai Wallet developers. Many developers have fled offshore to avoid legal exposure.

But law enforcement groups and prosecutors argue BRCA goes too far, rolling back their ability to pursue bad actors involved in on-chain crime. While some police organizations have come out in support of the overall Clarity Act, prosecutors remain firmly opposed to BRCA in its current form.

Last night, Democratic Senator Catherine Cortez Masto of Nevada released proposed changes to BRCA, claiming they were the result of negotiations with the White House, Treasury, and attorney groups. The White House and Treasury immediately rejected that characterization, stating the proposal was far from what they had agreed to and would be damaging to software developers.

"What you now have is Catherine Cortez Masto—who is a key vote—putting forward language that the White House says is non-negotiable. It's big drama."

🏦 Staking, Stablecoins, and Banking Pushback

Beyond ethics and BRCA, other provisions are drawing fire. The Toomey-Lummis stablecoin compromise, which addresses bank issuance and reserve requirements, is facing opposition from traditional banks and credit unions. Cody Carbone, a key industry figure, suggested on stage that technical changes to this language could still emerge.

Staking provisions also remain under scrutiny, as regulators and lawmakers grapple with how to classify and regulate proof-of-stake networks without stifling innovation.

📊 Why Democrats See This as a Trump Bill—Not a Win for Consumers

Despite the fact that the Clarity Act contains consumer protections, bankruptcy safeguards, and measures to prevent another FTX-style collapse, many Democrats remain opposed. The issue? Optics.

As Rebecca Rettig of Redtig noted, the Clarity Act is objectively a win for Democrats—it brings regulation, consumer protection, and accountability to an industry that has operated in a regulatory gray zone for years. But because President Trump has personally profited from crypto, many Democrats fear that passing the bill would be seen as legitimizing his ventures.

This perception was reinforced by a recent segment on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver, which concluded that while crypto should be regulated, the Clarity Act is not the way to do it. That narrative—echoed across mainstream media—reflects lingering trauma from the FTX collapse and Sam Bankman-Fried's donations to Democratic lawmakers.

"There's a lot of PTSD from FTX, especially among Democrats. They see crypto as synonymous with FTX and SPF, and no matter what the industry does to redeem itself, it's just not going to change some minds."

Ironically, the Clarity Act includes bankruptcy remoteness protections that would ensure customer funds are protected in the event of an exchange failure—exactly the kind of safeguard that could have prevented FTX.

🎲 What Are the Odds?

Prediction markets currently price the Clarity Act passing in 2026 at roughly 30%. When pressed for her view, Eleanor Tourett said she'd take the over—meaning she believes the odds are higher than 30%, especially if momentum builds in September after recess.

The path forward depends on three critical factors:

1. 📋 Cloture vote success — Can Republicans secure 10 Democratic votes to reach the 60-vote threshold?
2. 🤝 Ethics compromise — Will Tillis and Gallego broker a deal that satisfies both parties and the White House?
3. ⚖️ BRCA resolution — Can lawmakers find middle ground between developer protections and law enforcement concerns?

If any of these three pillars collapse, the bill is dead. But if momentum continues—and if Senate leadership is willing to extend session—there may still be a path forward.

"It's never done until it's done. But for all the missed deadlines and changing expectations, I still think there's a chance. It's not over till it's over."

🔮 Bottom Line

The Clarity Act is in a state of flux. Ethics provisions targeting Trump's crypto empire, the battle over BRCA protections for developers, and opposition from traditional finance all threaten to derail the bill. Senate procedure adds another layer of complexity, with tight timelines and mandatory waiting periods eating into an already short legislative window.

But there's still a path. If cloture is invoked, if ethics language is finalized, and if BRCA can be negotiated to satisfy both industry and law enforcement, the bill could pass—possibly even before the end of the year.

One thing is certain: crypto policy is no longer a niche issue. It's a partisan battlefield, a constitutional puzzle, and a test of whether Washington can legislate in real-time for an industry that moves faster than Congress ever will.

Stay tuned. This story is far from over.