Senators Cynthia Lummis, John Boozman and Tim Scott released what they called the final text of the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act on Monday, a day before the Senate votes on whether to take the bill up, with ethics restrictions on the president, members of Congress, federal judges and their spouses that President Trump agreed to.

Ethics for elected officials was the first item seven Senate Democrats listed in July when they said the bill fell short. Cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633 ripens Tuesday at 2:15 p.m. and needs 60 votes, under a unanimous consent agreement entered Aug. 8 and carried on the Senate Calendar of Business. Republicans hold 53 seats against 45 Democrats and two independents who caucus with them, per the Senate’s party division tally. If every Republican votes to proceed, seven Democrats carry the motion. The Defiant reported that seven-Democrat math when the bill reached the floor calendar.

The text runs 635 pages against 616 for the version Lummis posted on July 22. Lummis posted an interim revision on Sept. 10 that listed three changes, none of them in the ethics division. Monday’s release lists 126 changes Democrats requested, five of them in the ethics division, and says the new ethics language reflects “substantially all of the Tillis-Gallego ethics proposal.” Senator Ruben Gallego of Arizona is one of the seven Democrats. His office has not commented on the text.

“After a year of intense daily bipartisan negotiations, this bill is ready. President Trump voluntarily agreed to unprecedented ethics restrictions, holding every federally elected official, judge, and their spouses to some of the toughest ethics restrictions in U.S. history,” Lummis said in the release. “Democrats got what they wanted; now they need to take yes for an answer.”

The Sunset Is Gone

The July text ended the ethics ban at noon on Jan. 20, 2029, the end of Trump’s term, and barred any penalty for conduct before that date. The final text has no sunset section.

Three other provisions changed. The July text said that “no action, public or private, may be brought under this section by any State attorney general or any person other than the Attorney General.”

The final text gives state attorneys general standing to sue. Civil penalties went from 10% of the consideration received or $500,000, whichever is less, to 20% or $500,000, whichever is greater, both adjusted for inflation. The definition of a covered individual now includes a president, vice president or member of Congress who has been certified as elected but not yet sworn in, and their spouses.

The ownership test changed. The July text reached a “direct interest,” which meant holding a digital asset or owning 20% or more of the equity in a business entity that drew more than 50% of its revenue from issuing or sponsoring digital assets. Divesting it or placing it in a blind trust was a defense against the issuance ban.

The final text makes maintaining a “significant financial interest” its own prohibition and defines it at $15,000 or more of equity in an entity that drew a plurality of its revenue from issuing or sponsoring digital assets in any of the preceding three calendar years. Holders must divest or use a qualified blind trust by the division’s effective date and tell their supervising ethics office within three days. The office posts the notice publicly three days after that.

One July carve-out is gone. That text said a covered individual did not violate the ban if an issuer that had used their “name, image, or likeness” before they took office kept using it, “including through the minting, sale, or distribution of additional digital assets,” after the official divested. No equivalent appears in the final text.

Who The States Sue

A state attorney general alleging a violation of the issuance, sponsorship or significant-interest bans has standing to bring an action “against the Attorney General” of the United States for injunctive relief, not against the official who issued the token. Lummis’s own fact sheet describes it that way. States may sue a digital asset intermediary directly over the listing ban, and collect the penalty of up to $250,000 per violation per day.

Two provisions close the state route. No action may be brought if the supervising ethics office issues a legal opinion that the activity is not prohibited. None may be brought over a significant financial interest once that office publishes the divestiture or blind trust notice. A state or its residents must show harm, including financial harm above $100.

The district court enters findings of fact and refers the case to the en banc court of appeals for conclusions of law. The appeals court reviews the facts de novo.

In her statement on the July text, Banking Committee Ranking Member Elizabeth Warren said the president “can, and will, simply ignore the law because he handpicked his personal lawyer to lead the Department of Justice that is charged with enforcement and everyone else – including state attorneys general – are explicitly prohibited from bringing any enforcement actions.” Her office has not commented on the final text.

Tokens Already Launched

The prohibitions on issuing and sponsoring digital assets apply only to assets issued or sponsored on or after the division’s effective date. Tokens already launched fall outside them.

That date is the earlier of 360 days after enactment or 60 days after the Securities and Exchange Commission publishes the final rule under Section 10102(b). The same clock governs the divest-or-blind-trust requirement.

Once an interest sits in a qualified blind trust, the text says neither the trustee’s actions nor those of any entity the trust holds an interest in, “including the issuance or sponsorship of any digital asset,” count against the covered individual.

The Associated Press reported that Trump agreed to a ban on issuing meme coins and to the divest-or-blind-trust requirement, and that the White House accepted about 80% of the Tillis-Gallego proposal. Lummis’s release puts it at “substantially all.” Trump and his wife launched the TRUMP and MELANIA tokens in January 2025, days before his second inauguration.

AP quoted Senator Angela Alsobrooks of Maryland, another of the seven, saying: “We need the state attorneys general to also have the power to prosecute if the Department of Justice refuses to,” and “I have been very clear about the fact that I will not vote for any legislation that does not cover ethics.” Trump reported more than $1.4 billion from crypto businesses in his annual ethics disclosure, including more than $500 million from World Liberty Financial product sales and more than $600 million from meme coin sales through CIC Digital LLC, according to AP’s reading of the filing.

Silence From The Seven

None of the seven Democrats who negotiated the bill has issued a statement on the final text. Their July statement, signed by Senators Mark Warner, Alsobrooks, Cory Booker, Catherine Cortez Masto, Gallego, John Hickenlooper and Raphael Warnock, named ethics for elected officials, consumer protection, illicit finance, conflicts of interest and market integrity as the areas that had to be strengthened.

Neither Gallego nor Senator Thom Tillis, the North Carolina Republican whose joint proposal Lummis says the text incorporates, had posted anything on it as of Monday afternoon.

Traders Reprice The Vote

Polymarket put the odds of the CLARITY Act being signed into law in 2026 at 31% on Monday, on $16.3 million of cumulative volume. The same market priced 18% on Friday. A companion market on how many senators vote for the bill puts the odds of more than 50 at 62%, up from 36% on Friday. Traders had pushed passage odds into 2027 in early August, when Majority Leader John Thune let a first cloture filing pass.

Bitcoin traded at $77,666, up 0.5% over 24 hours and down 2.7% over seven days, in a 24-hour range of $76,439 to $77,831, according to CoinGecko.

The House Still Waits

Tuesday’s vote is on the motion to proceed, not on the bill. Clearing it opens debate and an amendment process.

Whatever the Senate passes goes back to the House, because the text is an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the bill the House sent over. The House passed H.R. 3633 by 294-134 on July 17, 2025. Every nay vote was Democratic. Seventy-eight Democrats voted yes. Senate Banking approved its version 15-9 on May 14 and reported the bill with the strike-and-insert amendment on June 1. Thune moved to proceed and filed cloture on Aug. 7.