The CLARITY Act is heading into a compressed legislative window, with the Senate Banking Committee scheduled to mark up the bill on May 14, 2026, and the White House targeting a July 4 signing deadline. The timetable has become more uncertain after Anthony Scaramucci warned that comprehensive crypto market-structure legislation could be delayed until 2029 or beyond.
The bill passed the House in July 2025 by a 294-134 vote, but its Senate progress has been uneven. A January 15, 2026 markup was postponed, and the renewed May hearing now carries outsized importance for institutional access, token classification and stablecoin product design.
Senate Math Creates a Narrow Path
The legislative calendar is tight. More than 130 amendments have been filed, and any final Senate passage would likely require a 60-vote threshold to overcome a filibuster, making bipartisan alignment essential.
Scaramucci, founder of SkyBridge Capital, argued that the risk is political as much as procedural. “I don’t see anybody that is against the President that’s going to allow him to have a win in cryptocurrency policy right now,” he said, framing crypto legislation as caught inside a broader partisan standoff.
That dynamic threatens the White House’s July 4 target. Even if the Banking Committee advances the bill, negotiators still need to resolve amendments, secure floor time and maintain support across factions, leaving little room for slippage before the legislative window narrows again.
Stablecoin Yield Remains the Core Flashpoint
The most contested issue is stablecoin yield. Banking groups are lobbying to restrict yield provisions, arguing that interest-like rewards on stablecoin balances could accelerate deposit flight from traditional banks.
A compromise under discussion would ban passive yield while allowing transaction-linked or activity-based rewards. The unresolved question is whether that language creates a workable distinction between payments incentives and deposit-like returns.
The bill also seeks to clarify jurisdictional boundaries between federal agencies. Proponents argue that clearer asset classification could broaden institutional eligibility for some tokens, including claims that XRP’s status as a commodity could be codified.
Treasury models, reserve strategies and customer incentive structures would need to be rebuilt around whatever final compliance perimeter survives the Senate process.
The broader institutional impact is significant. Continued ambiguity limits the ability of allocators to add non-Bitcoin, non-ETF tokens to approved lists, keeping capital concentrated in instruments with stronger de facto regulatory clarity.
If the markup produces a viable final text, the July 4 signature target becomes the next operational milestone. If negotiations collapse, market participants should prepare for prolonged jurisdictional uncertainty, slower product launches and higher compliance-planning risk.