Clarity Act News: Senator Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.) announced on Wednesday, June 25, that Senate negotiators will release compromise text for the CLARITY Act, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, H.R. 3633, over the July 4 holiday weekend, with a Senate floor vote push to follow in July, directly rebutting JPMorgan Chase CEO Jamie Dimon’s recent criticism of the crypto legislation’s stablecoin provisions.
This is not simply a scheduling update. It is a legislative deadline imposed by political physics: Lummis has announced she will not seek reelection in 2026, leaving her until January 2027 to lock in the digital asset regulatory framework she has spent three sessions constructing.
CLARITY Act News: Lummis Announces July Text Release and Senate Timeline
Speaking on Fox Business’ Mornings with Maria, Lummis said: “We’re finally to the point where we’re going to put out a text over the July 4th, and then we’re moving in July.”
The House passed H.R. 3633 in July 2025 by a 294–134 margin; the Senate Banking Committee advanced the bill 15–9 on May 14, 2026. Lummis has previously stated that she believes the bill can clear the Senate’s 60-vote cloture threshold despite sustained opposition from the banking industry, characterizing the stablecoin compromise not as a concession but as “a commitment.”
Let’s go. Let’s show. Let’s rodeo.
CLARITY is coming.
The tight recess calendar makes the July window close to mandatory. As detailed in , the August recess significantly compresses the available floor days, making a pre-recess text release the functional prerequisite for any September or fall vote.
Section 301 Revisions: The Stablecoin Deposit-Like Product Dispute
Dimon argued publicly that the crypto market structure bill would permit crypto platforms to offer rewards resembling interest-bearing bank deposits without equivalent regulatory safeguards, an argument banking trade groups have also advanced, citing deposit-flight risk and regulatory arbitrage.
Lummis rejected that characterization directly, pointing to revisions made to Section 301 of the bill.
The revised language allows stablecoin issuers to operate rewards programs but prohibits benefits tied directly to account balances in a manner that replicates traditional bank interest.
🇺🇸 INSIGHT: Sen. Cynthia Lummis says Jamie Dimon is wrong about the CLARITY Act.
“He needs to read the bill.”
An earlier Banking Committee draft had gone further, essentially banning crypto platforms from offering interest on inactive stablecoin deposits entirely. The current compromise is a narrower prohibition designed to address bank lobbying without foreclosing all yield-adjacent product design. The precise mechanics of that distinction, and how regulators would enforce it, are examined in .
Open Items: DeFi Regulation, AML Provisions, and Ethics Language
Lummis acknowledged three remaining open negotiating items: provisions governing DeFi (decentralized finance) protocols, AML (anti-money laundering) language, and ethics clauses.
She confirmed that multiple AML protections are now included in the bill’s current draft, a framework that traces back to Lummis and Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand’s (D-N.Y.) 2023 Responsible Financial Innovation Act, which required crypto kiosk operators to maintain precise customer address records with FinCEN.
The ethics provisions remain the most politically sensitive unresolved item. As covered in , a prior closed-door session between Lummis, Sen. Gillibrand, and White House Crypto Council Executive Director Patrick Witt collapsed without agreement after Republicans withdrew a provision that would have granted state attorneys general enforcement authority against the Department of Justice.
The analytical question at this stage is no longer whether the CLARITY Act advances crypto market structure legislation, the House vote and committee markup have settled that. It is whether the remaining DeFi and ethics language can be resolved before the August recess without unraveling the Section 301 compromise that neutralized the banking sector’s most pointed objection.
We suspect Dimon’s public intervention, whatever its legislative effect, has given Lummis a useful foil for demonstrating that the revised bill holds a defensible line on the deposit-product question, which may matter when she needs those final votes.
