Senator Bill Hagerty, a Republican member of the Senate Banking Committee, signaled on Monday that a viable path for a US digital asset market structure bill could crystallize in the coming weeks after months of congressional stalling. Speaking at the Digital Assets and Emerging Tech Policy Summit at Vanderbilt University, Hagerty indicated that fellow Republicans intend to move the CLARITY Act through the banking panel starting next week, with the goal of pushing it through committee in the April work period.
“We will be in a position, I hope, to bring all of this together very soon,” Hagerty said, noting that the banking committee is “very close” and that he expects the bill to be in committee in the next work period beginning Monday. “Over the next several weeks we should have this into the banking committee.”
“There’re several issues still outstanding, I think none of them are insurmountable and we will get to a point I believe in April that we’ll have it out of the banking committee. There’s still a lot more work to do.”
The event underscored the sense among lawmakers that a comprehensive framework for digital assets—long discussed but repeatedly delayed—could finally move forward in the first half of the year. Hagerty’s comments come as the bill’s path remains tethered to negotiations across committees and the broader political calendar as the midterm cycle looms.
Key takeaways
- April markup target for market-structure legislation: Hagerty said the banking committee is close to moving the CLARITY Act into a markup during the next work period, signaling a potentially decisive push in the coming weeks.
- Rebalancing crypto oversight to the CFTC: The draft framework envisions shifting primary regulatory oversight of crypto markets from the Securities and Exchange Commission to the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, reflecting a broader rethinking of how digital assets are regulated in the United States.
- Inter-committee dynamics complicate the timeline: The Agriculture Committee has already advanced its version of the bill in January, and the banking panel must hold its own markup before a potential floor vote, highlighting a multi-committee negotiation process.
- Industry players flag progress and risks: Coinbase chief legal officer Paul Grewal said lawmakers were “close to a deal” on stablecoin yield and related issues, underscoring that the negotiations are moving but still hinge on several contentious points.
- Crypto lobbying accelerates ahead of elections: With the 2026 midterms on the horizon, crypto-focused political action committees are mobilizing—Fairshake has reported a large war chest and influence ambitions, while the Fellowship PAC has appointed crypto-aligned leaders to key fundraising roles.
Regulatory architecture and interagency dynamics
The core idea behind the CLARITY Act—often referred to as a landmark crypto bill—would reframe how the United States oversees digital assets. By potentially elevating the CFTC as the lead supervisor for most crypto markets, while preserving certain securities/commodities distinctions, the bill aims to provide a clearer regulatory pathway for exchanges, issuers, and other market participants.
The legislation would not simply replace one regulator with another; it would require a coordinated push across major congressional committees. The agriculture panel has already signaled its support by advancing its version in a January markup, but the banking committee’s involvement remains pivotal because the bill’s broad scope touches both commodities and securities issues. The banking committee would need to complete its markup for the bill to reach the Senate floor, subject to further refinement and negotiations with the Agriculture Committee.
Earlier coverage noted that the agriculture committee’s version confronts topics such as tokenized equities, ethics concerns, and stablecoin yield—areas that have contributed to delays in the banking committee’s schedule. The interplay between SEC oversight, CFTC leadership, and the evolving treatment of tokenized assets adds a layer of complexity to any final package. Readers should note that related commentary from industry observers frames this as a critical juncture for how the United States could regulate the crypto market for years to come. Related reporting has highlighted optimism that the CFTC could oversee a broader swath of the market, should a comprehensive framework pass into law.
For market participants, the exact division of regulatory responsibilities matters because it shapes how exchanges operate, how asset classifications are determined, and how enforcement actions will be structured in the coming years. It also helps define whether new requirements—such as registration standards, reporting duties, or capital and conduct rules—apply uniformly across related crypto markets or are tailored to specific asset classes.
Political appetite and the broader electoral backdrop
The crosswinds of policy and politics are particularly salient this year as lawmakers weigh the potential impact of crypto regulation on electoral outcomes. Hagerty’s framing that there is still work to do and a sense of urgency ahead of the midterm cycle mirrors public remarks from other policymakers who have stressed the need for timely, predictable rules to reduce regulatory uncertainty for builders and investors alike.
Coinbase’s legal chief has echoed similar sentiment. Paul Grewal recently said lawmakers were “close to a deal” on stablecoin yield and other elements of the market-structure bill, signaling growing consensus on several core issues even as stalemates persist. This alignment between industry and lawmakers could help narrow the gaps, though significant policy hurdles remain to be resolved in the coming weeks.
Beyond Congress, political action committees with crypto ties have started to mobilize at scale. The Fairshake PAC, a crypto-backed group, reported spending substantial sums on media buys during the 2024 elections and has projected a sizable war chest for the 2026 midterms. Stand With Crypto, another advocacy coalition, has pointed to how the vote on the market-structure bill could influence crypto policy and, by extension, the 2026 electoral landscape. Stand With Crypto cites the broader strategic calculus around crypto policy and its potential impact on voters’ perceptions of lawmakers’ willingness to support the industry.
In another notable development, the Fellowship PAC—speaking on behalf of industry-aligned donors—announced the appointment of Jesse Spiro, a senior executive from the tether-backed ecosystem, as chair. The move underscores the intensifying choreography between policy debates and political fundraising as the 2026 cycle approaches.
Analysts and lobbyists say the outcome of these efforts could shape market sentiment and liquidity decisions for many market participants over the next 18 to 24 months. A clear, stable framework would reduce policy risk for exchanges and asset issuers, while overly fragmented or uncertain rules could slow innovation and push activity toward jurisdictions with clearer guidance.
What to watch next for traders and builders
For users, developers, and investors, the primary takeaway is that a more predictable regulatory regime could emerge if the banking committee marks up the CLARITY Act in April and advances it toward a floor vote. The next several weeks are crucial, as lawmakers negotiate terms on tokenized assets, stablecoins, ethics considerations, and how to coordinate oversight across multiple agencies.
Market participants should monitor committee activity, statements from House and Senate leadership, and comments from vocal industry groups and lobbying coalitions. The degree to which consensus can be reached on sensitive points—such as stablecoin yield, tokenized securities, and the proper distribution of regulatory authority between the SEC and the CFTC—will likely determine the policy’s momentum into the summer and beyond.
Another point of ambiguity remains the broader political calendar. With midterms approaching and crypto policy a potential differentiator for voters, the incentives for rapid progress could either accelerate or stall legislative activity depending on how negotiations unfold and how much leverage lawmakers perceive they have with stakeholders on both sides of the aisle.
In the near term, the market structure bill’s fate seems tethered to a blend of substantive policy compromises and political timing. If April proves decisive, a committee vote could pave the way for broader debate on the Senate floor. If negotiations stall, the path to a comprehensive framework could slip into the 2026 cycle, risking renewed policy drift and continued regulatory uncertainty for the industry.
As the process unfolds, investors and builders should stay alert to progress on the core sticking points—especially stablecoin yield and tokenized assets—as well as any shifting leadership roles within the relevant committees. The coming weeks will reveal not just whether a market structure bill can pass but how the United States intends to calibrate regulation in a rapidly evolving digital asset landscape.
Stay tuned for updates on committee markup schedules, voting timelines, and any new comments from lawmakers or industry groups as the debate over the digital asset market structure heats up in the spring.