WASHINGTON—The long-awaited federal crypto market-structure bill faces renewed uncertainty on Capitol Hill amid political urgency from the White House and industry resistance that has stalled key Senate action.
President Trump’s top digital-assets adviser, Patrick Witt, said Wednesday he is confident the U.S. Senate will ultimately pass a market-structure bill — even as the legislative process remains mired in procedural delays and policy disputes. Witt urged lawmakers and industry backers to embrace compromise now rather than risk a harsher regulatory environment under future Democratic leadership, Invezz reported.
Witt’s comments reflect frustration within parts of the crypto policy establishment that have grown impatient with the slow pace of legislative progress. He reiterated that a bill that delineates regulatory jurisdiction between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission — a core objective of the CLARITY Act — is inevitable, though the timing remains uncertain, CoinNess noted.
But the reality in the Senate is less certain. Lawmakers in the Senate Banking Committee were forced to postpone a scheduled markup of the CLARITY Act in mid-January after Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong publicly withdrew the company’s support for the legislation in its current form. Armstrong cited concerns that the draft would ban tokenized equities, overhaul decentralized finance oversight unfavorably, and eliminate popular stablecoin yield programs — provisions he said made the bill “worse than the current regulatory environment.”
The withdrawal triggered an abrupt delay of committee action, with no new vote date set and no guarantee of when or if the bill’s next procedural step will occur. Senate leaders, including Banking Committee Chairman Tim Scott (R-SC), have framed the pause as a temporary recalibration and maintained optimism about eventual passage, but lawmakers have not yet reconciled the contentious provisions that divided industry voices.
Industry and policy analysts say the delay underscores the fragility of bipartisan consensus in crypto regulation after years of stalling negotiations. Supporters argue that clear federal rules are essential for fostering innovation and protecting investors, while critics — including some crypto platforms and traditional financial interests — say specific language in the current draft could stifle competition or weaken safeguards.
Market reactions have been mixed. Coinbase shares and major cryptocurrencies experienced near-term price swings following the withdrawal announcement, though executives like Armstrong continue to engage with lawmakers and banking partners to hammer out language that could achieve broader support.
Witt has warned that the window for favorable legislation could narrow if Congress loses Republican control or if a future Democratic majority pursues stricter approaches to crypto oversight. That sense of urgency — and frustration with industry pushback — frames the current debate over whether to accept a compromise that may not satisfy all stakeholders, CoinNess said.
As of now, the CLARITY Act’s fate hinges on resolving deep differences over stablecoin policy, DeFi regulation, and the balance of agency authority. With the Senate in recess and no committee votes imminent, the timeline for action remains unclear, analysts concluded.
DCUC Urges Congress To Focus On Core Objective
As Congress continues work on digital asset and crypto market-structure legislation, it is critical that lawmakers remain focused on the core objective: establishing a clear, responsible regulatory framework that promotes innovation without disadvantaging the financial cooperatives that serve America’s military families and local communities, the Defense Credit Union Council said.
“The Defense Credit Union Council has been clear in our recent correspondence with the Senate Banking Committee that any market-structure bill must ensure true parity for credit unions,” stated Jason Stverak, DCUC chief advocacy officer. “That means avoiding regulatory constructs that favor large banks, fintechs, or crypto platforms at the expense of member-owned financial institutions that already operate under strict safety-and-soundness, consumer-protection, and capital requirements.”
Stverak emphasized that CUs are not seeking special treatment.
“We are seeking fair treatment,” he told CUToday.info. “Market-structure legislation should recognize that credit unions are fundamentally different from investor-owned banks and speculative digital-asset firms, and it should not create incentives that siphon deposits away from community-based lending institutions that finance small businesses, service members, veterans, and working families.
“Just as importantly, DCUC strongly urges lawmakers to oppose any attempt to attach unrelated policy riders to this legislation—particularly the Marshall-Durbin credit card interchange proposal or a federal 10% interest-rate cap,” Stverak said. “These proposals are not market-structure reforms. They are revenue-elimination schemes that would directly undermine the ability of credit unions to provide affordable credit, financial readiness tools, and emergency liquidity to their members.”