Thom Tillis Negotiates With Banks as U.S. CLARITY Act Faces Two-Week Delay

The U.S. Senate’s CLARITY Act—described by CoinDesk as “Crypto's great hope in Senate's Clarity Act”—is facing a narrowing path to passage as the Senate’s available floor time diminishes for 2026 and as stablecoin-yield disputes drag the market structure bill through months of delay.

“Crypto's great hope in Senate's Clarity Act still has a path to survive tight calendar A sideshow stablecoin yield debate has dragged the market structure bill through months of delay, even as the Senate's available floor time diminishes for 2026”

@coindesk

CoinDesk says “final boxes are being ticked,” but also reports that “another two-week delay seems to have struck” while Republican Senator Thom Tillis keeps negotiating with bankers who objected to the U.S. treatment of stablecoin rewards programs.

@coindesk

CoinDesk also quotes a Senate aide saying a potential “new delay of a couple of weeks — allowing Republican Senator Thom Tillis to finish discussions with bankers over stablecoin-yield concerns — is not yet pushing this work past the point of no return.”

The legislative timing is framed as a race against the Senate’s August departure for election mode, with CoinDesk describing “about a dozen weeks of DC work before the elections,”.

CoinDesk further states that if the bill clears the Senate Banking Committee, “the text needs to be merged with the version that passed the Senate Agriculture Committee,” and that this merger work is the “timing cushion that these current delays are eating into.”

The House vote is also central to the timeline: CryptoSlate says the House “decisively passed its version of the bill by a bipartisan 294-134 margin in July 2025,” while Blockchain News similarly says the bill “passed House 294-134 in 2025.”

The CLARITY Act’s Senate momentum is being constrained by a specific stablecoin-yield dispute that traces back to the GENIUS Act, according to CryptoSlate and CoinDesk.

CryptoSlate says the GENIUS Act was “Signed into law on July 18, 2025,” establishing “a baseline federal framework for payment stablecoins” while leaving “a critical gray area unresolved,” including whether “third parties or affiliated platforms could structure products that pass yield-like rewards back to stablecoin holders.”

Bitcoin News

CoinDesk similarly frames the problem as “an unresolved stablecoin matter from the GENIUS Act” that has “delayed progress on the Clarity Act since the start of the year.”

The dispute is described as a narrow but decisive question: whether stablecoins should be “legally fenced in as narrow, yield-free payment instruments” or whether crypto platforms can build products around them that offer “economic upside,” as CryptoSlate puts it.

CoinDesk adds that “earlier negotiations over decentralized finance (DeFi) protections are effectively settled,” leaving “few other impediments in the way of a committee approval,” which makes the stablecoin issue the main hurdle.

CryptoSlate also ties the legislative gridlock to White House involvement, stating that on “April 8,” the White House’s Council of Economic Advisers released a report that “directly undercut the traditional banking sector’s primary argument against stablecoin yields.”

In that report, CryptoSlate says eliminating stablecoin yield would increase “traditional bank lending by only $2.1 billion,” which it characterizes as “just 0.02%,” and it estimates a “net welfare cost to consumers of $800 million.”

The stablecoin-yield fight has produced sharply worded statements from both sides, and multiple outlets capture the conflict in direct quotes.

“Crypto Market Structure Bill, passed House 294-134 in 2025, faces Senate delays risking total loss amid Bitcoin market volatility”

Blockchain News

CoinDesk reports that Coinbase’s Chief Legal Office Paul Grewal posted on X: “You can’t be for CLARITY and against rewards,” framing the debate as inconsistent with the bill’s purpose.

CryptoSlate quotes Alexander Grieve, Vice President of Government Affairs at Paradigm, accusing banks of stalling: “They just want to kill CLARITY. And if they run out the clock, they will.”

Crypto.news likewise quotes White House Crypto Council executive director Patrick Witt, writing on X that banks are “further lobbying out of greed or ignorance” and urging lawmakers not to let the bill be “held hostage” by yield fears.

On the banking side, La Tribune (citing AFP) describes American Bankers Association warnings that $6.6 trillion of funds invested in traditional institutions are “in danger” because of the proposal to authorize platforms exchanging electronic currencies to pay interest to stablecoin holders.

La Tribune also reports that Coinbase’s Brian Armstrong objected to the bill’s early text, writing on X on January 15: “We’d rather not have a law than a bad text,” and it says he left the negotiating table the same day.

La Tribune further states that Eleanor Terrett said the White House was considering withdrawing its support for the bill if Coinbase did not return to the negotiating table, and it adds that Armstrong denied the threat while saying the White House had been “very constructive.”

Different outlets emphasize different aspects of the same CLARITY Act standoff, producing a clear divergence in framing even when they describe the same underlying dispute.

CoinDesk focuses on legislative mechanics and timing, describing a “scheduling maelstrom” and stressing that “a potential May committee action could keep the legislation on track for a passage by July,” while also warning that “any further delays could kill its chances.”

CoinDesk

CryptoSlate, by contrast, frames the conflict as an aggressive lobbying campaign by banks, saying “Banking organizations are aggressively pushing advertisements to pressure US lawmakers to act against the introduction of stablecoin yields” and that Senator Thom Tillis is “actively pressing” for delay.

Crypto.news blends both narratives but foregrounds the clash between the White House and banking groups, stating that banks fight stablecoin yields “clashing with a White House report that says the lending impact is just 0.02%,” and it also highlights the Senate Banking Committee’s calendar pressure by saying the committee has until “Friday” to decide whether to notice the bill for markup the week of “April 27.”

Blockchain News and Crypto Briefing both emphasize the risk of Senate failure and market uncertainty, with Blockchain News warning that the bill “faces Senate delays risking total loss amid Bitcoin market volatility,” while Crypto Briefing says “The delay means more uncertainty for XRP specifically.”

La Tribune adds a more financial-institutional lens, describing how stablecoin issuers invest buyers’ money in assets “such as U.S. Treasuries, gold, or even Bitcoin,” and it provides profit figures for Circle and Tether to illustrate what banks object to.

Even within CoinDesk’s own reporting, the stablecoin dispute is treated as a “sideshow” that has “dragged the market structure bill through months of delay,” while CryptoSlate treats it as the central chokepoint that determines whether stablecoins can legally offer yield-like rewards.

The sources describe multiple consequences if the CLARITY Act slips further, ranging from regulatory uncertainty to potential market and competitive effects.

“Zafar is a seasoned crypto and blockchain news writer with four years of experience”

Coinpedia

CoinDesk warns that the Senate will “essentially flee Washington in August and be in election mode until the November congressional midterms arrive,” and it says the bill must reach a final vote of the overall Senate by July, with “April appears to be a lost cause for the crypto Clarity Act.”

Coinpedia

CoinDesk also describes additional substantive hurdles beyond stablecoin yield, including an ethics dispute in which Democrats wanted to limit senior government officials “from profiting off of crypto interests,” and it says that language is “now circulating back and forth” even though it “won't be in the banking panel's version and would be added later.”

CryptoSlate frames the stakes as broader than scheduling, saying the CLARITY Act is the Senate’s “primary legislative vehicle for setting federal rules governing digital asset markets” and aiming to resolve “years of jurisdictional infighting over which regulators oversee trading platforms, token issuers, and spot markets.”

CryptoSlate also says the House already passed the bill by “bipartisan 294-134 margin in July 2025,” but that Senate delays could determine whether stablecoins remain “yield-free payment instruments” or whether crypto platforms can offer “economic upside.”

The banking side’s stakes are quantified in La Tribune, which says the American Bankers Association warns $6.6 trillion is “in danger” and it argues that stablecoin remuneration could siphon deposits from traditional banks, with La Tribune adding that smaller institutions could be hit and citing that JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citigroup, and Wells Fargo “together account for 40% of the assets among the four.”

On the crypto side, CoinDesk notes Coinbase could take “a substantial hit if stablecoin reward programs are curtailed,” and it highlights Paul Grewal’s push on X to defend rewards.

Finally, La Tribune provides a concrete example of the kind of reward rate Coinbase already offers, saying Coinbase’s premium program provides a “3.5% reward rate” to users who buy USDC, and it reports that Coinbase wants that to be “generalized.”