preferred on
Points of Focus
- Tillis switched his vote to no specifically to preserve a motion to reconsider.
- The same tactic revived the GENIUS Act after its own May 2025 failure.
- A second CLARITY Act vote would need roughly 10 to 11 Democrats to flip.
Sen. Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) initially voted yes on Tuesday’s CLARITY Act cloture motion, then switched his vote to no in the final moments, a procedural maneuver that keeps the bill alive rather than ending it, contrary to how the bare 49-50 result reads.
Under Senate rules, only a senator who voted on the prevailing side can file a motion to reconsider, and Tillis’s switch let him do exactly that.
People are missing a key detail about today’s Clarity Act vote.
Sen. Thom Tillis initially voted YES, but switched his vote to NO after it became clear the cloture motion had failed.
Why?
Under Senate procedure, a senator who voted with the prevailing side can ask to… https://t.co/Bs0aDSCw4G
— Hodlr (@hodlrr17) September 15, 2026
‘This is not the end for the Clarity Act,’ Tillis said in a post on X. ‘We’ve made substantial bipartisan progress in large part because of the White House. This procedural motion allows us to continue working towards a positive outcome.’
This is not the end for the Clarity Act. We've made substantial bipartisan progress in large part because of the White House. This procedural motion allows us to continue working towards a positive outcome. https://t.co/mNFxcGMtfU
— Senator Thom Tillis (@SenThomTillis) September 15, 2026
Identical tactic revived the GENIUS Act last year
This is not a novel maneuver. The Senate’s record shows cloture on the GENIUS Act, last year’s stablecoin bill, failed 48-49 on May 8, 2025, with Majority Leader John Thune voting no for the identical procedural reason. A second cloture vote passed 66-32 on May 19, eleven days later, after 16 Democrats who had voted no in May flipped to yes.
CLARITY Act supporters face a steeper climb than that precedent suggests. Every Democrat present voted no on Tuesday, meaning a second vote would need roughly 10 to 11 Democratic votes to flip, more than the GENIUS Act eventually got, but starting from zero rather than a handful of holdouts already leaning yes.
Two of the senators who moved the GENIUS Act’s second vote, Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.) and Jerry Moran (R-Kan.), had voted no in May before switching to yes on May 19, showing that individual votes on these procedural questions can shift within weeks when leadership keeps negotiating.
The Digital Currency Group, one of the industry’s largest holding companies, called Tuesday’s result ‘a missed opportunity for American businesses, consumers, and U.S. competitiveness’ in a statement to Newsweek, while adding that the need for clear digital-asset rules ‘remains as urgent as it ever has.’
Crypto bill’s own Republican sponsors disagree on what happens next for CLARITY
Tillis’s optimism was not universally shared, including by his own party.
Sen. Cynthia Lummis (R-Wyo.), one of the bill’s lead sponsors, told reporters afterward, ‘I think we’re done. It’s over,’ before posting a considerably harsher statement online blaming Democrats. Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) offered a more ambiguous read, telling reporters there is ‘a big difference between dead and mostly dead.’ At the same time, Sen. John Kennedy (R-La.) suggested any renewed attempt might have to wait for a lame-duck session after the midterms.
On the Democratic side, Sen. Angela Alsobrooks (D-Md.) pushed back on the idea the bill is finished, saying, ‘No, it’s not going to die,’ and arguing that with over 70 million Americans holding crypto, Congress has a responsibility to write rules for it regardless of Tuesday’s outcome.
Separate hearing reflected the same unresolved crypto-ethics fight in CLARITY
The same day, a different fight over crypto and political ethics played out in the House. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent’s annual testimony before the House Financial Services Committee was formally about the international financial system, but Rep. Al Green (D-Texas) used his questioning time to call President Trump’s memecoin a Ponzi scheme, a charge Green has raised in committee before.
During a congressional hearing, Rep. Al Green didn't hold back on his stance regarding memecoins and speculative crypto assets, calling them out directly:
"Meme coins… are investments driven by the greater fool theory."
Everyone buys an obvious fake coin hoping a greater fool… pic.twitter.com/tqdHRE9Dhv
— Richer🐂🀄️ (@RicherONG) September 16, 2026
Bessent rejected the comparison, pointing out that equities and bonds are intangible assets too, and that markets broadly depend on someone paying more for an asset later.
The exchange was not part of the Senate’s CLARITY Act proceedings. Still, it landed the same day the ethics provisions built around Trump’s own crypto holdings were central to the Senate’s failed vote, a reminder that the president’s personal crypto business remains the throughline connecting both chambers’ unresolved fights this week.
Even a successful second cloture vote would not have ended the process quickly. Because the Senate has changed the bill’s text since the House passed its own version 294-134 back in July 2025, both chambers would still need to agree on a final, identical bill before it could reach the president’s desk. This step remains true whether Tuesday’s vote had passed narrowly or failed as it did.
Tillis’s motion to reconsider does not, by itself, create the votes the CLARITY Act needs. The Senate has not yet scheduled a second cloture vote, and no date has been set as of this writing.
Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial or investment advice. Cryptocurrency prices are highly volatile. Always conduct your own research before making investment decisions.
Share
Most read articles
