15 September: why a crypto bill everyone claims to want remains stalled

*The Clarity Act was passed by the House of Representatives thirteen months ago, by 294 votes to 134. It cleared the Senate Banking Committee in May. The US President is publicly calling for its passage. And yet, it has never been brought to a vote on the Senate floor.*

On 15 September 2026, at 2.15 pm Washington time, something will finally happen. But it is essential to understand what — because most articles write "vote on the crypto bill", and that is not what this is about.

The US Senate operates on filibusters. A minority can extend debate indefinitely, and 60 votes out of 100 are required to end it. This procedure is called cloture.

On 15 September, senators will vote on a cloture motion on the motion to proceed: in other words, they will decide whether the Senate has the right to begin considering the bill. Not to pass it. If this first hurdle is cleared, what remains is thirty hours of debate, a vote on the motion itself, the consideration of the merits, a second 60-vote cloture, and then the final vote. And if the Senate amends the text, it goes back to the House.

There are around fourteen sitting days left in the Senate before the end of the legislative year. The constraint is no longer political; it is arithmetical.

Republicans hold 53 seats. If all vote in favour, they need 7 Democrats. However, two Republicans have announced they will vote against — Josh Hawley (Missouri) and Rand Paul (Kentucky) — bringing the required number to 9 Democrats.

Number of Democrats who have publicly pledged to vote for cloture: zero.

Yet seven industry-friendly Democratic senators signed a joint statement on 22 July: Angela Alsobrooks (Maryland), Cory Booker (New Jersey), Catherine Cortez Masto (Nevada), Ruben Gallego (Arizona), John Hickenlooper (Colorado), Mark Warner (Virginia), and Raphael Warnock (Georgia). Their position can be summed up in one sentence:

Seven senators. Exactly the number needed. They are saying yes to the principle, but no to the text.

This is the main sticking point, and it is a direct head-on clash. Democrats are demanding a provision prohibiting public officials and their spouses from issuing or sponsoring digital assets.

The reason is not theoretical. Donald Trump's financial disclosure filed with the Office of Government Ethics on 1 July 2026, covering the year 2025, reports more than $1.4 billion in income tied to crypto-assets — memecoin royalties, sales of stakes in World Liberty Financial, and proceeds from a stablecoin-related company (Fortune ; TIME).

The White House has unequivocally rejected the claims. Spokesperson Anna Kelly stated that "neither the President nor his family have ever engaged — or will ever engage — in conflicts of interest". Trump himself asserts that there is "nothing illegal" about his investments.

On the substance of the negotiations, the stalemate is well-documented. Senators Thom Tillis (Republican) and Ruben Gallego (Democrat) submitted a bipartisan counterproposal to the White House in late July. Gallego described the situation on 19 August to The Block:

On the other side, the frustration is mutual. Senator Cynthia Lummis (Republican, Wyoming) summed it up on 29 July: after eleven months of concessions, she says she no longer knows what her Democratic colleagues expect.

The second hurdle came from an unexpected quarter: a Republican.

Josh Hawley, senator for Missouri, opposes the text on behalf of his state's community banks, which fear that the yields offered on stablecoins by crypto platforms will siphon off their deposits. His phrase, on 6 August:

The financial stakes are considerable: Coinbase would reportedly derive around $1.35 billion a year from rewards paid on USDC. The American Bankers Association considers that the current drafting of the text leaves a loophole allowing interest-like yields to be offered, even though the US stablecoin law, the GENIUS Act, prohibits them.

It is worth noting in passing that Europe has decided otherwise: under the MiCA regulation, paying interest on a currency-backed stablecoin is purely and simply prohibited.

The third disagreement concerns illicit finance. Senator Elizabeth Warren (Democrat, Massachusetts) criticises the text for "dangerous blind spots", particularly regarding decentralised finance protocols and transaction mixers.

Cynthia Lummis responds that the text contains more than sixteen provisions targeting money laundering, sanctions evasion and terrorism financing. A technical point crystallises the debate: a section protects non-custodial software developers from obligations imposed on money transmitters. The US National District Attorneys Association believes this would "materially impair criminal investigations involving cryptocurrencies".

Warren's position, meanwhile, leaves no room for negotiation. On 22 July: “This bill should be dead on arrival.”

Estimates of the probability of passage collapsed over the course of the summer. Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy Digital, revised them four times: 75% in May, 50% in late June, 30% on 24 July, 10% on 14 August. His phrasing on 24 July stuck:

On Polymarket, the prediction market where real money is wagered on the bill's passage before 31 December, the odds fell from 82% in February to 27% in late July, before climbing back to around 29% this week — likely driven by the White House meeting, although no source formally confirms this.

Finally, the executive branch itself makes no secret of having a Plan B. Patrick Witt, White House crypto advisor, explained on 18 August that "a whole series of regulations will be coming out", and that the administration is giving Congress "every opportunity to pass the bill before we break the glass".

This is the key to understanding the entire case. An administrative rule — such as the one proposed by the SEC on 18 August — can be undone by the next administration. A law cannot. The sector wants a law. The calendar, however, is refusing to play along.

Crypto Hebdo provides information and does not offer investment advice. Crypto-assets are volatile and you may lose all or part of your invested capital.