#特朗普呼吁尽快通过Clarity法案 Trump puts the name of a deceased senator on a fast track button for the “Clarity Act”

First, let’s correct one fact: this is not “support,” it’s mourning
On July 13, Trump posted on Truth Social calling on the Senate to pass the “Clarity Act.” But the real background of this post—and the idea that it “supports sitting senators”—are two completely different things. Senator Lindsey Graham unexpectedly died last Saturday (July 11) at the age of 71. In essence, Trump’s post is legislative pressure dressed up as mourning: “In memory of steadfast supporter Senator Lindsey Graham, the U.S. Senate should pass the ‘Clarity Act.’”

🇨🇳 and many other countries want to completely control this major financial event and the AI space. We are currently leading in AI, but they are scrambling to catch up. Don’t let Beijing win in any direction!”

Notably, according to Unchained, Graham is actually not the core negotiator behind the “Clarity Act.” He is neither on the Senate Banking Committee nor the Agriculture Committee, and this year he has not cast any vote to advance the bill. The only connection is that he supported the “GENIUS Act” last year (stablecoin legislation). Using a deceased senator who wasn’t a core driver to “rush a vote” is more like a precise packaging of political narrative.

What happens on July 17: a hearing, not a vote
Many self-media outlets describe July 17 as the “key voting day,” which is a misreading.
The real setup is this: the House Financial Services Committee will hold an “overseas hearing” (field hearing) in New York, with the focus on innovation and market structure. The purpose is to generate new public momentum for a bill that already passed the House in July 2025—not any form of voting. The battlefield that truly determines the bill’s fate has always been in the Senate. On May 14, the Senate Banking Committee advanced the bill with 15 yeas and 9 nays. Two Democrats, Ruben Gallego and Angela Alsobrooks, voted in favor, but both clearly stated that this does not equal a commitment to a final floor vote. With roughly 53 Senate seats in the Republican camp, to break the filibuster threshold, Republicans still need to win about 7 Democratic votes—this is the real uncertainty behind the hearing.

Three stuck knots
The bill isn’t stalled without reason. According to CryptoTimes, three major disagreements remain unresolved: first, an ethical review controversy over officials’ cryptocurrency asset holdings—this debate has been further amplified by the existence of crypto businesses tied to the Trump family; second, the “Section 604” provisions on developer responsibility exemptions, with opinions split within the enforcement system; third, the tug-of-war over stablecoin yield provisions—the compromise方案 being negotiated between Senator Tillis and Angela Alsobrooks would ban “bank-deposit-interest”-type products, but keep some incentive designs based on trading activity.

Galaxy Research analyst Alex Thorn had already cut the probability of passage of the bill by 2026 from 75% to 60% on June 5, citing that the Senate agenda has been crowded out by the ongoing fight over FISA reauthorization and the continued debate over deweaponization funding; and according to Coinpedia citing Polymarket data, the market-implied probability of passage within the year has already fallen to 43%.

Congress has an extremely limited window—only a few weeks remain before the August recess. Senator Lummis has already warned: if they can’t get it done this year, the next real legislative opportunity may not come until 2030.

A question for the market
When “Don’t let 🇨🇳 win” becomes vote-rushing rhetoric, and when the name of a deceased senator who isn’t even a core driver is used to create urgency, what should really be asked may be this: if even the crypto assets holdings of the president’s own family become obstacles for ethical review, is the narrative of “ensuring U.S. dual leadership in finance and AI” a genuine strategic consensus—or just another legislative race swept up by the political cycle? After July 17, the answer may become clearer.