Coinbase Chief Executive Brian Armstrong has publicly rejected claims that he or his company caused the failure of the CLARITY Act to advance in the U.S. Senate. In a post on the social media platform X on September 19, Armstrong said the Wall Street Journal was preparing an article that would assign responsibility to him and Coinbase for the legislation’s setback.

Armstrong described the forthcoming coverage as repeating arguments favored by banking groups and accused the newspaper of taking a consistently critical stance toward the bill. He presented a detailed account of Coinbase’s involvement, distinguishing between an earlier draft the company opposed and the later version it supported.

Early Opposition to the January Draft

In mid-January, Coinbase withdrew its support for the version of the CLARITY Act scheduled for review by the Senate Banking Committee. Armstrong stated that the draft contained significant problems in four areas: decentralized finance, tokenization of assets, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission’s authority over spot markets, and rules governing rewards on stablecoins.

He characterized the January text as potentially harmful to the crypto sector, including what he called a de facto ban on tokenized equities and penalties that could affect DeFi developers. The committee postponed its planned markup after the withdrawal of support. Armstrong also noted that the bill lacked sufficient political backing at that stage and was unlikely to pass.

Coinbase and other industry participants then engaged with lawmakers and stakeholders to revise the legislation. Negotiations continued for several months.

Revised Bill Gains Industry Support

By early May, senators reached a compromise on stablecoin rewards. The agreement prohibited rewards structured like interest on traditional bank deposits while permitting certain rewards linked to actual use of crypto platforms and networks. Armstrong responded positively to the deal.

The Senate Banking Committee advanced the updated bill on May 14 by a 15-9 vote. Armstrong said the four issues he had identified in January had been addressed. He described the final draft that reached the full Senate as strong and confirmed that he and Coinbase strongly supported it. The company continued to advocate for the measure through the summer, covering provisions on digital-asset classification, the division of authority between the Securities and Exchange Commission and the CFTC, self-custody rights, consumer protections, and anti-money-laundering standards.

Senate Vote Falls Short

On September 15 the Senate held a procedural vote on whether to move the CLARITY Act forward. The motion failed 49-50, short of the 60 votes required. Four Republican senators voted against the measure, and most Democrats and independents also opposed it.

Several Democratic lawmakers cited insufficient safeguards against potential conflicts of interest involving President Donald Trump and his family’s crypto holdings as a primary reason for their opposition. Banking industry groups had continued to raise concerns that stablecoin rewards could draw deposits away from traditional banks and reduce lending capacity. Crypto firms maintained that overly restrictive limits would damage innovative products.

Senator Thom Tillis later filed a motion to reconsider the vote, leaving open the possibility of further action. Seven Democratic senators publicly stated the day after the vote that they intended to keep pressing for the bill’s passage.

Market Reaction and Next Steps

U.S. spot bitcoin exchange-traded funds recorded approximately $450 million in net outflows on the day of the failed vote. Bitcoin’s price declined below $76,000 in the immediate aftermath.

Armstrong called the outcome a disappointment and a missed opportunity for the United States to establish clearer leadership on digital-asset regulation. He argued that the Securities and Exchange Commission and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission already possess sufficient statutory authority to issue rules for the sector. Officials from both agencies have indicated they are prepared to move forward with rulemaking under existing powers.

Armstrong maintained that Coinbase’s earlier objections had produced constructive improvements and that the company had never sought to block federal legislation. He closed his public comments by expressing confidence that the public would recognize the distinction between the January draft and the version that ultimately reached the Senate floor.