House committees advanced the CLARITY Act in two votes

The U.S. House Committees on Agriculture and Financial Services each ordered H.R. 3633, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act of 2025, reported favorably on June 10, 2025. Agriculture approved the amended measure by 47 votes to 6. Financial Services approved its amended version by 32 votes to 19.

The dual advance mattered because both committees had jurisdiction over the proposed division of digital-asset oversight between the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Securities and Exchange Commission. Clearing both panels moved a comprehensive crypto-market-structure proposal closer to consideration by the full House.

It did not enact the bill. As of June 10, H.R. 3633 had not passed the House or Senate, reached the president, created a registration category, or changed the legal status of any token.

What the proposal attempted to build

The framework introduced on May 29, 2025 would give the CFTC exclusive regulatory jurisdiction over cash or spot transactions in qualifying digital commodities when conducted through newly registered digital-commodity exchanges, brokers or dealers. The agency already possessed anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority in commodity spot markets, but the proposal would add direct regulation of specified intermediaries.

The bill also contemplated provisional registration while the CFTC wrote implementing rules. Applicants would have to provide management and operating information, maintain records available to the agency, join a registered futures association and follow requirements concerning customer disclosures and assets.

On the securities side, the proposal sought to distinguish a digital asset from an investment contract through which it might initially be offered. It would establish disclosure and exemption pathways for certain digital-commodity fundraising while retaining SEC authority over securities transactions. It also envisioned circumstances in which SEC-registered broker-dealers and national securities exchanges could handle digital commodities and permitted payment stablecoins.

Certain decentralized-finance activities—including validating networks, publishing software, developing wallets and providing some user interfaces—would be excluded from specified SEC registration requirements. The committee’s section-by-section explanation said SEC anti-fraud and anti-manipulation authority would remain. That distinction was central to the debate because an exclusion from intermediary regulation was not a blanket exemption from federal law.

The votes exposed different political coalitions

The 47-6 Agriculture result showed broad support in the committee responsible for commodity-market policy. The narrower 32-19 Financial Services result showed greater resistance in the panel responsible for securities and banking law. Both votes were bipartisan, but the tallies did not demonstrate agreement about every classification test, exemption or safeguard.

Supporters presented H.R. 3633 as a way to replace jurisdictional uncertainty with registration, disclosure and customer-asset rules. Those descriptions were legislative claims, not verified economic outcomes. No compliance benefit, consumer-protection improvement or increase in domestic innovation could be measured on June 10 because the framework was not operative.

Critics questioned whether the proposed decentralization tests would produce clarity, whether exclusions for decentralized-finance activity were too broad, and whether the legislation adequately addressed conflicts involving public officials’ crypto interests. The Financial Services markup record shows numerous proposed amendments were rejected, withdrawn or not offered, underscoring that committee approval did not resolve those objections.

What changed on June 10

The defensible event-day conclusion is procedural but consequential: two committees with overlapping jurisdiction agreed to send amended versions of a comprehensive digital-asset framework forward. The action demonstrated that crypto market structure had enough support to move beyond hearings and discussion drafts.

What remained uncertain was equally important. The final House text still required further legislative processing, the Senate had taken no action on H.R. 3633, and any enacted framework would require extensive agency rulemaking. Markets therefore received a policy signal on June 10, not a new regulatory regime.