Famed journalist: Ahead of the CLARITY Act’s consideration, bipartisan talks failed, and the BRCA provision became the final point of disagreement

Renowned crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett disclosed on X on May 14 that a bipartisan senators’ working group negotiating to get the Democrats to make concessions on at least two unresolved issues ended without results during the overnight session on Wednesday (May 13 local time). Terrett confirmed there was substantive progress on the moral issues negotiation, but the final breakdown came from disagreements over the wording changes to the BRCA (the “Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act”) provisions.

Two Unresolved Points of Dispute: The Moral Provision and BRCA

First: The moral and conflict-of-interest provision. Several Democratic lawmakers backed the bill on the premise that they had reached a compromise on moral and conflict-of-interest issues related to the First Family before the bill was considered. Terrett confirmed there was substantive progress on this issue, but a formal agreement was not reached before the deadline. Senate Minority Leader Schumer attended a meeting of Democratic members, and sources present said Schumer indicated that Thursday’s consideration would be contingent on further progress on the moral negotiations.

Second: The BRCA provision. The “Blockchain Regulatory Certainty Act” (BRCA) provisions are designed to protect non-custodial software developers from being prosecuted under the Money Transmission Laws. Several Democratic lawmakers raised concerns about the provisions at the last minute. The two sides were unable to reach agreement on wording revisions, which became the direct cause of the negotiations collapsing.

Major Amendments Submitted So Far: Three Main Directions

ABA 8,000-letter campaign: The American Bankers Association directly targeted Section 404 (the Tillis-Alsobrooks stablecoin yield compromise plan), arguing that the current text still has loopholes for deposit outflows.

Reed-Smith Amendment: Force the committee to choose between supporting the practical usefulness of cryptocurrency and the interests of traditional banks, putting Republicans in a dilemma vote.

Warren 40+ Amendments: Among the proposals with the widest impact, it would block the FED from granting main-account access to cryptocurrency firms; Reed also proposed explicitly prohibiting cryptocurrency from being used to pay taxes.

Items Pending Confirmation for Thursday’s Consideration

According to Terrett’s reporting, the voting positions of five Democratic lawmakers in the committee who support cryptocurrency have not yet been officially confirmed. A bipartisan staff meeting continued through Tuesday night reviewing the amendments. The January 2026 consideration attempt had received 137 amendments before cancellation; this round has already submitted more than 100.

Frequently Asked Questions

Where exactly did the bipartisan negotiations break down on the two core issues?

According to Terrett’s reporting, the first issue is the moral and conflict-of-interest provision (involving the First Family). Negotiations saw progress but did not reach a formal agreement. The second issue is the BRCA provision (protecting non-custodial software developers from prosecution under the Money Transmission Laws). The two sides could not agree on wording revisions, which directly caused the deal to fall apart.

What does Lummis’ “99% agreement, 1% disagreement” claim specifically refer to?

In her overnight statement on Wednesday, Rep. Lummis confirmed that the two sides had agreed on the vast majority of provisions in the CLARITY Act text, and that the remaining 1% refers to the unresolved issues involving the moral provision and the BRCA provision. Lummis’s position is that she wants the committee to pass the bill first, and then resolve the remaining disagreements in subsequent procedures.

Which specific CLARITY Act provision do ABA’s 8,000 letters directly target?

The ABA letter campaign directly targets Section 404 (the Tillis-Alsobrooks stablecoin yield compromise plan). This section allows stablecoin holders to receive rewards based on transaction activity, but prohibits rewards that are passive and equivalent to deposit interest. The ABA argues that the current text still contains loopholes that could accelerate deposits flowing from traditional accounts to crypto platforms.