List of Senators Who Voted Against Advancing the CLARITY Act and the Reasons Behind Their Stance

The U.S. Senate failed to advance the Digital Asset Market CLARITY Act on September 15, 2026, after a procedural vote ended 49-50. The motion needed 60 votes to invoke cloture, leaving the bill short of the threshold required to move forward. One senator, Chris Coons of Delaware, did not vote.

This article provides the list of senators who against the CLARITY Act in the sense that they voted Nay on the motion to advance H.R. 3633. That distinction matters: this was a procedural vote to move the bill forward, not a final vote on whether the CLARITY Act should become law.

Important note: Names circulating on social media can be incomplete or inaccurate and should be reconfirmed directly against the official Senate roll call and, where relevant, statements from the individual senators. The list below has been checked against the Senate's official September 15 roll-call record.

Key Takeaways

• 50 senators voted Nay on the September 15 procedural motion to advance H.R. 3633, while 49 voted Yea and one did not vote.

• The Nay votes included 44 Democrats, four Republicans and two independents. The four Republicans were Susan Collins, Josh Hawley, Jerry Moran and Thom Tillis.

• Opposition centered on unresolved issues surrounding ethics restrictions, digital-asset regulation and other provisions of the bill; individual senators did not necessarily cite the same reason for their vote.

List of Senators Who Against the CLARITY Act

The following senators were recorded as Nay in the official Senate roll call for Vote No. 234.

Independent Senators

• Angus King — Maine

• Bernie Sanders — Vermont

Republican Senators

• Susan Collins — Maine

• Josh Hawley — Missouri

• Jerry Moran — Kansas

• Thom Tillis — North Carolina

Democratic Senators

• Angela Alsobrooks — Maryland

• Tammy Baldwin — Wisconsin

• Michael Bennet — Colorado

• Richard Blumenthal — Connecticut

• Lisa Blunt Rochester — Delaware

• Cory Booker — New Jersey

• Maria Cantwell — Washington

• Catherine Cortez Masto — Nevada

• Tammy Duckworth — Illinois

• Dick Durbin — Illinois

• John Fetterman — Pennsylvania

• Ruben Gallego — Arizona

• Kirsten Gillibrand — New York

• Maggie Hassan — New Hampshire

• Josh Hawley — Missouri (Republican; listed above)

• Martin Heinrich — New Mexico

• John Hickenlooper — Colorado

• Mazie Hirono — Hawaii

• Tim Kaine — Virginia

• Mark Kelly — Arizona

• Andy Kim — New Jersey

• Angus King — Maine (Independent; listed above)

• Amy Klobuchar — Minnesota

• Ben Ray Luján — New Mexico

• Ed Markey — Massachusetts

• Jeff Merkley — Oregon

• Chris Murphy — Connecticut

• Patty Murray — Washington

• Jon Ossoff — Georgia

• Alex Padilla — California

• Gary Peters — Michigan

• Jack Reed — Rhode Island

• Jacky Rosen — Nevada

• Bernie Sanders — Vermont (Independent; listed above)

• Brian Schatz — Hawaii

• Adam Schiff — California

• Chuck Schumer — New York

• Jeanne Shaheen — New Hampshire

• Elissa Slotkin — Michigan

• Tina Smith — Minnesota

• Mark Warner — Virginia

• Raphael Warnock — Georgia

• Elizabeth Warren — Massachusetts

• Peter Welch — Vermont

• Sheldon Whitehouse — Rhode Island

• Ron Wyden — Oregon

• Chris Van Hollen — Maryland

The list above is organized by party for readability, but the official Senate record is the controlling source. The official roll call records 50 total Nay votes.

READ ALSO: Democrats Reject the Republicans' Clarity Act Due to Ethical Provisions—Will It Be Delayed Again?

A Correction to the Social Media List

The social-media list circulating before and after the vote should not be treated as the authoritative record.

Most notably, Angela Alsobrooks was included in the official Nay list but was absent from the list supplied for this article. The Senate record lists Alsobrooks as D-MD, Nay.

There is also a terminology issue. Saying that these senators “voted against the CLARITY Act” can be shorthand, but technically they voted against invoking cloture on the motion to proceed to H.R. 3633. The Senate record explicitly identifies the question and vote as Vote No. 234.

Who Is Against the CLARITY Act?

So, Who is against the CLARITY Act?

The September 15 vote shows opposition from senators across party lines.

All senators recorded as Nay included Democrats, four Republicans and two independents. The bipartisan Republican opposition came from Susan Collins, Josh Hawley, Jerry Moran and Thom Tillis.

However, a Nay vote does not necessarily establish that every senator opposed every provision of the bill.

The vote occurred after months of negotiations and revisions. Senators could oppose advancing the bill because of particular provisions, unresolved negotiations or procedural considerations.

That is why individual statements are more useful for determining the reasons behind a senator's position than simply looking at party affiliation.

Why Did Senators Oppose Advancing the CLARITY Act?

There was no single publicly documented reason shared by every senator who voted Nay.

One of the most prominent issues in the final negotiations was the bill's ethics provisions concerning federal officials and digital assets.

Democratic senators had argued that the revised bill did not go far enough in addressing conflicts of interest involving President Donald Trump and other federal officials with crypto-related financial interests. The Washington Post reported that Democrats' concerns included whether the ethics provisions sufficiently addressed federal officials' digital-asset dealings.

Sen. Angela Alsobrooks, one of the Democratic negotiators, identified ethics language and divestment as a major outstanding issue before the vote, according to the Washington Post.

CBS News similarly reported that Democrats opposed the measure amid concerns over the bill's ethics standards.

These concerns should not automatically be attributed to every senator who voted Nay. The official roll call establishes how each senator voted, but it does not provide an individual explanation for every vote.

What Is the CLARITY Act?

The CLARITY Act, formally H.R. 3633, is legislation intended to establish a federal regulatory framework for digital assets.

Among other things, the bill addresses the regulatory roles of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in the digital-asset market.

The Senate vote concerned whether the chamber could proceed to consideration of the legislation. The official Senate record describes H.R. 3633 as a bill establishing a system for regulating the offer and sale of digital commodities and addressing related financial-regulatory issues.

The bill therefore has significance for the crypto industry because it seeks to establish clearer federal rules around digital-asset markets.

Why CLARITY Act Fails to Pass?

The phrase why Clarity ACT fails to pass needs some clarification.

The bill did not receive a final Senate rejection on its substantive provisions. Instead, the Senate failed to advance it through a procedural cloture vote.

The motion received:

• 49 Yea

• 50 Nay

• 1 Not Voting

At least 60 votes were required to invoke cloture. The motion therefore failed.

Reuters reported that four Republicans—Jerry Moran, Rand Paul, Josh Hawley and Thom Tillis—joined Democrats in opposing the measure. However, the official Senate roll call lists Susan Collins, not Rand Paul, among the four Republican Nay votes.

This is another example of why the official roll call is preferable to rapidly circulating social-media lists.

What Were the Main Issues in the Final CLARITY Act Debate?

Several issues were discussed during the final negotiations.

Ethics and Conflicts of Interest

Ethics rules became one of the most visible disputes.

The revised bill included restrictions intended to address digital-asset conflicts involving public officials, but Democratic negotiators continued to seek stronger provisions, particularly concerning divestment.

Regulatory Structure

The CLARITY Act seeks to define how the SEC and CFTC divide regulatory responsibility over different categories of digital assets.

The broader question is how crypto markets should be regulated at the federal level and which agency should oversee specific activities.

Stablecoin and Industry Provisions

The negotiations also involved provisions affecting the wider digital-asset industry, including questions around stablecoin rewards and protections for developers.

These issues contributed to disagreements over the final legislative text, although the precise importance of each issue differed among senators and negotiating groups.

What Happens After the Senate Vote?

The September 15 result puts the legislation's immediate Senate progress on hold.

The Senate Periodical Press Gallery recorded the motion as “Not invoked, 49-50” on September 15.

Reuters reported that the vote effectively put the legislation on ice as Congress prepared to leave Washington ahead of the November midterm elections.

That does not necessarily mean the subject of crypto regulation disappears.

The SEC and CFTC continue to have existing authorities, while Congress can revisit digital-asset legislation in a future legislative process.

For crypto markets, the practical issue is that the proposed comprehensive framework did not advance through this particular Senate procedural vote.

What Does the CLARITY Act Vote Mean for Crypto?

The CLARITY Act has been one of the major legislative efforts to establish a comprehensive federal framework for digital assets.

Its failure to advance leaves the proposed framework unresolved.

Reuters reported that crypto-related assets declined following the vote, while industry participants publicly reacted to the setback.

However, the market reaction should be distinguished from the legislative facts.

The vote did not change the underlying technology of Bitcoin, Ethereum or other cryptocurrencies. Instead, it affected the immediate legislative path toward a federal regulatory framework.

The longer-term impact depends on subsequent congressional action, regulatory decisions and future negotiations.

READ ALSO: Crypto Bill Stalls in Senate: Why Banks Are Fighting Back

Conclusion

The official answer to the list of senators who against the clarity act is more precise than the lists circulating on social media.

On September 15, 2026, 50 senators voted Nay on the procedural motion to invoke cloture and advance H.R. 3633, while 49 voted Yea and one senator did not vote. The Nay votes included 44 Democrats, four Republicans and two independents.

The Republican Nay votes were Susan Collins, Josh Hawley, Jerry Moran and Thom Tillis, while Angus King and Bernie Sanders were the two independents. The remaining Nay votes came from Democratic senators, including Angela Alsobrooks, who was missing from the social-media list provided for this article.

The reasons behind opposition were not identical for every senator. Ethics provisions, divestment requirements, regulatory issues and other unresolved elements of the legislation featured prominently in the final negotiations.

Most importantly, the vote was a procedural vote to advance the bill, not a final vote declaring the CLARITY Act permanently defeated.

The CLARITY Act vote is another example of how regulatory developments can affect the crypto market and its participants. If you want to follow digital-asset markets alongside major policy developments, you can register with Bitrue and explore the markets available on the platform.

FAQ

Who voted against the CLARITY Act?

Fifty senators voted Nay on the September 15 procedural motion to advance H.R. 3633.

How many Republicans voted against it?

Four Republicans voted Nay: Susan Collins, Josh Hawley, Jerry Moran and Thom Tillis.

How many Democrats voted against the CLARITY Act?

Forty-four Democratic senators voted Nay.

Why did the CLARITY Act fail to advance?

The procedural motion received 49 votes in favor and 50 against, below the 60 votes required for cloture.

Is the CLARITY Act permanently dead?

The September 15 vote stopped the bill from advancing at that stage; it was not a final substantive vote on the legislation.

Disclaimer: The views expressed belong exclusively to the author and do not reflect the views of this platform. This platform and its affiliates disclaim any responsibility for the accuracy or suitability of the information provided. It is for informational purposes only and not intended as financial or investment advice.