Key Takeaways
The Digital Asset Market Clarity Act is heading into a July 17 House hearing carrying opposition from two directions that its drafters did not anticipate when the bill cleared the Senate Banking Committee in May: a law enforcement coalition arguing the legislation creates dangerous oversight gaps, and nearly 100 Catholic leaders warning it could weaken protections against human trafficking and financial crime.

Both groups have focused their criticism on Section 604 of the bill, which would codify the Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act and exempt software developers who build decentralized blockchain applications from money transmitter obligations and from liability for crimes committed by users of those platforms.
Four law enforcement organizations sent a formal letter to administration officials arguing that Section 604 could create gaps in oversight and accountability that make it harder for authorities to investigate and prosecute crypto-related crimes.
The groups contend the bill does not go far enough in applying the Know Your Customer and Anti-Money Laundering safeguards that traditional financial institutions must follow, and that certain crypto participants could be exempted from reporting obligations that have been standard in regulated finance for decades.
Notably, the National Fraternal Order of Police and the National Association of Police Organizations did not sign the letter, meaning opposition within law enforcement is not uniform, a distinction that matters as Senate negotiators weigh how broadly the objections run.
The Alliance to End Human Trafficking, a Catholic-backed organization, separately warned Senate Majority Leader John Thune and Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer that Section 604 could weaken safeguards against illicit finance and create vulnerabilities that bad actors exploit for trafficking and exploitation networks.
Nearly 100 Catholic leaders signed the letter, framing their opposition in the language of Catholic social teaching: that the test of any financial system is not whether it generates wealth or innovation, but whether it safeguards human life and dignity.
The Bank Policy Institute added institutional weight to the criticism, issuing a brief on June 17 describing the Senate CLARITY bill as illicit finance-friendly rather than innovation-friendly and warning that DeFi platforms and unhosted wallets would fall outside standard AML and sanctions rules entirely under the current draft.
The new opposition letters arrive as Senate negotiations have already broken down on two fronts. An ethics provision collapsed after Republicans and the White House withdrew support for language that would have allowed state attorneys general to enforce conflict-of-interest rules tied to officials with crypto holdings.
A separate agreement on Section 604 itself fell apart when Senators Mark Warner and Catherine Cortez Masto made their floor votes conditional on law enforcement signing off on the DeFi language, a condition that has not been met.
Speaking on Mornings with Maria, Senator Cynthia Lummis said lawmakers are preparing to release the latest text of the CLARITY Act over the July 4 holiday to give members “one last really thorough look” before moving ahead.
She indicated that Congress intends to advance the legislation in July, signaling that negotiations have reached a stage where leadership is ready to push the bill toward a floor vote.
However, Polymarket odds of the bill passing in 2026 have fallen to 42%, down from 74% a month ago. The July 17 House hearing is now the next concrete milestone, though it does not resolve the Senate vote count problem that has stalled the bill since May.