Senator Thom Tillis and Ruben Gallego sent a bipartisan ethics proposal on the Clarity Act to the White House. The move lands while stablecoin language is still being negotiated. It also keeps pressure on the bill as a floor vote approaches.
Thom Tillis and Ruben Gallego
Thom Tillis and Ruben Gallego are the names on the proposal. The filing matters because it tries to settle ethics rules without waiting for the rest of the bill to harden into a final package. For readers tracking the bill, the practical signal is that the ethics fight is still open.
In mid July, Senator Thom Tillis suggested a circuit breaker clause. That clause would let regulators step in if bank deposits moved in a significant way to stablecoins. The mechanism is narrow, and that is the point: it is meant to address deposit flight without rewriting the rest of the bill.
White House and the banks
Trump agreed to a previous ethics provision. Democrats were displeased with it. That split explains why the ethics language is back on the table rather than settled.
Bankers have continued to complain about the stablecoin interest clause. Punchbowl News reported that a growing number of Republicans are siding with banks. Cynthia Lummis advances Clarity Act shows how the broader push around the bill has kept moving even as the disputed pieces remain unresolved.
GENIUS Act amendments
The latest iteration of the Clarity Act includes amendments related to the GENIUS Act for stablecoins. That means the bill is still absorbing changes tied to how stablecoins fit inside the larger crypto framework. The reader-facing effect is straightforward: the version that reaches a floor vote may not match the one now circulating.
The unanswered question is the exact shape of the bipartisan ethics proposal and the latest stablecoin amendments. Those details will decide whether the Clarity Act advances with a cleaner compromise or carries its disputes into the vote itself.
