Introduction
A landmark cryptocurrency regulatory bill faces a potential three-year legislative delay, with final implementation not expected until 2029, as political strategy surrounding the 2026 midterm elections takes precedence. According to analysis from investment bank TD Cowen, the CLARITY Act—designed to establish clear rules for digital assets—is now caught in a partisan stalemate, with Democratic senators reportedly considering procedural tactics to stall progress until after the next election cycle. The delay pushes the prospect of comprehensive U.S. crypto regulation into the next presidential administration.
Key Points
- The CLARITY Act's advancement is tied to 2026 midterm outcomes, with Democrats potentially stalling to regain House control before supporting it.
- Conflict-of-interest provisions targeting Trump's crypto connections are a major legislative hurdle, with Democrats viewing them as essential integrity measures.
- A proposed compromise would enact market structure rules immediately but delay ethics restrictions for approximately three years, until after Trump's term.
Political Calculus Trumps Legislative Progress
The path forward for the CLARITY Act, a pivotal piece of crypto market structure legislation, is now heavily contingent on the outcome of the 2026 midterm elections. TD Cowen’s Washington Research Group, led by managing director Jaret Seiberg, issued a report indicating that Democratic lawmakers may withhold support for the bill if they perceive a viable opportunity to reclaim control of the House of Representatives in November. This strategic positioning threatens to derail a bill that has already consumed years of bipartisan negotiation.
Despite the legislation—known as the Responsible Financial Innovation Act in the Senate—having passed the Republican-controlled House in July, TD Cowen projects it is now more likely to advance through Congress in 2027. Final regulatory implementation by agencies like the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) could then be pushed to 2029. The firm notes that Democratic senators could employ various procedural tactics to stall the bill until after the midterm results are known, gambling that a shift in political winds would strengthen their negotiating position.
Conflict-of-Interest Provisions: The Core Sticking Point
At the heart of the legislative impasse are stringent conflict-of-interest provisions demanded by Democratic legislators. These safeguards would prohibit executive branch officials and their immediate family members from holding digital assets like BTC or ETH or maintaining financial interests in crypto businesses while serving in government. The provisions are a direct response to concerns about former President Donald Trump’s extensive crypto entanglements.
As highlighted in the TD Cowen report, Trump and his family maintain involvement with World Liberty Financial, a crypto platform, and have connections to American Bitcoin, a mining operation. Furthermore, Trump’s December pardon of former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao intensified Democratic fears about potential regulatory favoritism. A bipartisan Senate Agriculture Committee draft from November explicitly included such ethics safeguards. Democrats view them as essential for regulatory integrity, while Republicans have characterized them as politically motivated obstacles targeting a specific administration.
A Potential Path to Compromise
TD Cowen’s analysis proposes a potential compromise to break the stalemate: decoupling the conflict-of-interest provisions from the core regulatory framework. The suggested mechanism would involve Congress enacting the broader market structure legislation immediately while delaying the enforcement of the ethics restrictions by approximately three years. This timeline would allow the conflict provisions to take effect after the conclusion of a potential second Trump term.
“Time favors enactment as the problems disappear if the bill passes in 2027 and takes effect in 2029,” the report stated. This approach would require concessions from both sides. “Crypto would need to accept that the presidential election could impact the final rules, and Democrats would need to accept that the conflict provision will not apply to Trump.” The CLARITY Act itself is critical for the sector, as it would clearly divide regulatory authority between the SEC and CFTC, defining which digital assets are securities and which are commodities.
Ultimately, the uncertainty of election outcomes may be the driving force toward a deal. TD Cowen observed that because midterm results cannot be reliably predicted, members of the minority party might choose the certainty of a compromise over gambling on an electoral shift that may not materialize. The coming months will test whether political maneuvering or pragmatic legislating will determine the future of U.S. crypto regulation.
📎 Related coverage from: coincodecap.com
