CFTC Chair: Regulation plan proceeds if crypto bill lacks clarity

US CFTC Chair Michael Selig has told lawmakers and the crypto industry that the agency will continue moving on digital-asset regulation even if Congress does not pass the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act. Speaking in prepared remarks at the CFTC’s Innovation Advisory Committee’s inaugural meeting on Thursday, Selig framed the agency’s approach as a way to “give CLARITY its breathing room” while still preparing rulemaking that could be deployed quickly if the bill stalls.

Selig also described actions already set in motion inside the commission, including work aimed at allowing both registered and non-registered entities to offer leveraged or margined crypto asset trading, alongside efforts to develop protections for developers. His comments came as the broader crypto policy debate in Washington remains tied to the timing of Senate proceedings and ongoing negotiations over the bill’s content.

Key takeaways

• Despite CLARITY being the central market-structure proposal, CFTC leadership signaled it will pursue crypto rules independently if Congress cannot finalize the legislation.
• Selig said staff have already been directed to consider rules that would enable leveraged or margined crypto trading by both registered and non-registered entities.
• The CLARITY bill appears paused until the US Senate returns in September, with a cloture vote requiring 60 support to advance.
• Selig’s agenda aligns with the SEC’s parallel approach: proposed digital-asset rules designed to provide clearer regulatory pathways for market participants.
• The CFTC is currently operating with a limited leadership panel, with Selig described as the only Senate-confirmed commissioner directing agenda-setting since December.

CFTC: rulemaking won’t wait for CLARITY

In his remarks, Selig argued that the CFTC should not stand still while Congress deliberates. He said the commission would move forward on crypto regulations even without CLARITY’s passage, suggesting the agency could help ensure implementation of the administration’s priorities if the bill is delayed or revised.

“We’re going to give CLARITY its breathing room for a vote,” Selig said, but added that if Democrats cannot support a bipartisan product that reflects compromises from both sides of the aisle and reaches the President, he would direct CFTC staff to “move swiftly” to propose new rules for the industry.

In practical terms, Selig said he has already instructed staff to advance policy work related to crypto trading structures, including allowing leveraged or margined trading on a broader basis. He also pointed to an effort to explore developer protections—an element that has been gaining attention in US crypto policymaking as regulators attempt to distinguish between consumer-facing activity and other categories of software and infrastructure.

Where CLARITY stands in Congress—and why it matters

Although Selig indicated the CFTC is prepared to act on its own, the legislative path for CLARITY remains the major determinant of a unified national market-structure framework. The market-structure bill is currently effectively paused until the Senate returns to session in September. At that point, Majority Leader John Thune is expected to seek a cloture vote.

Under the Senate’s rules as described in the reporting, CLARITY would need 60 votes to pass the chamber and then return to the House of Representatives for final legislative approval before reaching President Donald Trump for signature or veto. This 60-vote threshold is especially consequential because it signals that the bill’s fate depends not only on broad support, but on overcoming procedural resistance.

Any uncertainty around the number of votes needed has been heightened by political questions tied to ethics. The source notes that some Democrats have called for stronger ethics provisions related to the Trump family’s crypto investments, reported as totaling $1.4 billion in 2025. Trump has claimed that a “lot of Democrats” support CLARITY, but it remains unclear whether that support is sufficient to reach the Senate threshold.

For market participants, the distinction is important: if CLARITY passes, it could standardize how US regulators approach key aspects of crypto trading and market structure. If it does not, the CFTC’s willingness to proceed suggests the industry could face a more fragmented regulatory landscape driven by agency rulemaking rather than legislation.

Coordination signal with the SEC’s proposed rules

Selig’s comments also echoed the direction taken by the Securities and Exchange Commission. According to the source, the SEC on Tuesday released proposed rules for digital asset regulation that would offer crypto companies a safe harbor policy from tokens being treated as “investment contracts,” along with certain exemptions for issuers.

While the SEC and CFTC operate in different jurisdictional domains, the alignment in messaging suggests regulators are attempting to reduce uncertainty in overlapping areas of the market—especially for trading, token offerings, and associated activities. For investors and operators, that could mean a clearer set of expectations on how rules might apply, even if Congress is still debating a comprehensive framework.

At the same time, regulatory coordination remains imperfect. The SEC proposal is designed around its own statutory interpretation and enforcement priorities, while the CFTC focuses on commodities and derivatives-related market activity. That difference is why agency-by-agency rulemaking may not fully substitute for legislative clarity.

Innovation committee focus: AI, prediction markets, and CFTC jurisdiction

Selig delivered his remarks alongside Innovation Advisory Committee Chair Walt Lukken and the committee’s Designated Federal Officer Michael Passalacqua. Beyond the CLARITY debate, the meeting agenda reportedly included artificial intelligence and prediction markets.

The CFTC has claimed “exclusive jurisdiction” over prediction markets, according to the source, based on its view that event contracts on relevant platforms are “swaps.” Selig has said he directed the commission to pursue lawsuits against state-level authorities that challenge this position—referenced in the source in connection with matters involving companies such as Kalshi and Polymarket.

For builders and traders in prediction markets, these jurisdictional disputes are not abstract. They can influence where platforms operate, how products are structured, and what legal risk markets face when expanding into new states or audiences. In that context, CFTC momentum on broader digital-asset rulemaking may also affect how prediction-market platforms plan future product design and compliance programs.

CFTC leadership constraints add urgency

The meeting also highlighted an internal constraint: the CFTC, as described in the source, currently lacks a full panel of commissioners. Selig has been operating as the only Senate-confirmed commissioner within a leadership group expected to consist of a bipartisan five-member panel.

Because of that imbalance, Selig has been solely responsible for directing the agency’s agenda since December, which may help explain the emphasis in his remarks on speed—both in continuing existing initiatives and in preparing contingencies should Congress not reach a legislative conclusion.

In the near term, investors and industry participants should watch whether the CFTC’s ongoing rulemaking work translates into formal proposals, and whether CLARITY can clear the Senate’s procedural and political hurdles in September. The immediate uncertainty is legislative, but the immediate regulatory direction is already becoming clearer from agency-level activity.