HOUSE FINANCIAL SERVICES COMMITTEE MARKUP OF THE CLARITY ACT
On June 11, the House Financial Services Committee advanced the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act of 2025 out of Committee, with a bipartisan vote of 32—19, following a markup of the Act and various measures on June 10. The amendment in nature of a substitute, ANS to H.R. 3633, offered by Chairman Hill (R-AR) was accepted, with forty-some failed amendments offered by Committee Democrats. The CLARITY Act’s passage in the House Financial Services and Agriculture Committees advances the Act to the House floor for a vote. Chairman Hill’s press release on the Act’s passage is available here, with his opening statement outlining the measures under consideration available here.
OVERVIEW
The following is a summary of the main topics explored in the markup.
- Chairman Hill (R-AR) framed the CLARITY Act as landmark legislation that creates a much-needed regulatory framework for digital assets in the absence of clear and consistent rules and regulations governing its use and development. He outlined how the Act establishes a regulatory framework for digital assets and serves as a critical step towards providing legal certainty, protecting consumers, and ensuring that the U.S. remains a leader in digital innovation. He cautioned that without decisive action, the U.S. risks falling behind.
- Chairman Hill highlighted how the spot market gap between the Securities and Exchange (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) jurisdiction created a regulatory void for intermediaries to operate without clear rules or protections. He criticized the Biden administration and former SEC Chair Gensler for pursuing a strategy of regulation by enforcement rather than offering clarity through formal guidance or rulemaking. He contrasted U.S. regulators’ reactive approach that created compliance uncertainty and offshoring of innovation to how other countries moved swiftly to create clear regulatory structures for digital assets and become global centers for this financial technology.
- Representatives Steil (R-WI) and Huizenga (R-MI) highlighted how the Act will cement the U.S. as the center of innovation in the digital asset space, eliminating legal ambiguity that offshored innovation and stifled U.S. investment by implementing a commonsense framework that supports responsible development.
- Representative Downing (R-MT) reiterated that the U.S. cannot cede leadership in the digital asset space, calling for the Act to appropriately account for the nuance of blockchain technology and ensure its transformative aspects are not lost to one-size-fits-all regulation.
- Committee Republicans discussed how the Act provides long overdue regulatory certainty by clearly defining the roles of the SEC and CFTC, closing the spot market gap, and applying proven market safeguards to the digital asset space, with consumer protection and innovation on equal footing.
- Representative Huizenga referenced support for, and inclusion of, the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act as a further means of providing investment and market certainty for developers and innovators, instead of creating arbitrary barriers and unachievable registration guidelines.
- Chairman Hill noted that the Act sets statutory requirements for what constitutes a mature blockchain and grants the SEC discretion to define additional qualifications. He affirmed that the Act fully authorizes necessary funding for the SEC to fulfill its responsibilities and noted that the SEC provided extensive technical assistance in drafting, including analysis of staffing needs.
- Representative Steil explained the SEC would retain the ability to rebut or reject a certification, and would maintain oversight throughout the process. He added that an issuer’s intent to mature would be disclosed in the offering statement, which is subject to SEC enforcement under Section 17 of the Securities Act for any misleading statements. He emphasized that the structure adds rigor, not a loophole, and clarified that the intent to mature relates solely to qualifying for the codified exempt offering, not to be formally certified as mature. He also noted that maturity is accounted for in both eligibility for the exempt offering as well as insider sales restrictions.
- Representative Norman (R-SC) outlined and supported the Act’s inclusion of national security provisions to promote transparency regarding how strategic enemies may be exploiting the digital asset marketplace, raising concerns about potential national security risks associated with such foreign ownership. He pointed to Section 313 and Section 314 directives to Treasury Secretary Bessent, alongside the CFTC and SEC, to study and report to Congress on digital asset registrants owned by governments of foreign adversaries.
- Democrats, led by Ranking Member Waters (D-CA), criticized the Act as a vehicle to further the President’s crypto corruption, citing that it does nothing to address blatant conflicts of interest nor avenues for corruption and bribery. She referenced Section 103’s exclusion for collectibles from the definition of a digital commodity, questioning Chairman Hill on whether it would exclude memecoins from regulation.
- Representative Foster (D-IL) questioned the self-certification process for mature blockchain systems’ allowance of issuers to self-certify with the intention of achieving decentralization, flagging default acceptance of a self-certification as a loophole. He also raised additional resources required for the SEC to adequately review potentially large volumes of self-certifications, requesting due diligence estimates and technical assistance documentation.