House Finance Chair Says Crypto Regulator Actions Fall Short of CLARITY Bill

Rep. French Hill, chair of the U.S. House Financial Services Committee, says regulators are taking steps to address crypto oversight—but he argues their approach will not deliver the long-term certainty Congress could provide through legislation.

Speaking on Wednesday in a Fox Business interview, the Arkansas Republican pointed to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) as agencies that have begun rulemaking work following the failure of the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act in the Senate last month. Hill said those regulatory efforts have “fallen short” of what permanent statutory change could achieve, adding that he remains hopeful the bill can still pass during the current “lame duck” period in Congress.

Key takeaways

• French Hill argues the SEC and CFTC can propose and refine rules, but still lack the stability of a congressionally enacted framework for digital assets.
• Hill links the agencies’ renewed activity to the Senate’s failure to pass the CLARITY Act last month.
• He said he is pushing for CLARITY to move during the lame duck session, where election outcomes could influence votes.
• Regulatory capacity may be constrained: there are reportedly seven leadership-level vacancies across the SEC and CFTC.

Hill frames regulatory rulemaking as a stopgap

Hill told Fox Business that, after the Senate did not pass the CLARITY Act, both the SEC and the CFTC moved to address crypto regulation through proposed rulemaking covering different parts of their respective oversight mandates. According to earlier coverage from Cointelegraph, the CFTC has advanced proposals aimed at developing a crypto regulatory framework, but the broader legislative effort stalled when the CLARITY Act failed to get approval in the Senate.

In Hill’s view, that kind of regulatory process is inherently less durable than legislation. He emphasized that while the agencies are “moving forward” on digital asset issues, Congress still needs to provide “permanent” legal changes to set stable ground rules for the industry and the U.S.’s competitive position.

Hill also suggested that Congress could still act quickly. He said he hopes CLARITY can be passed in the lame duck session, which would extend legislative momentum rather than leaving the sector dependent on evolving agency guidance and rulemaking cycles.

Why the lame duck window may matter politically

Hill pointed to the practical timing of congressional action. He noted that the Senate would have only 22 days in session between the November midterm elections and the arrival of the next cohort of lawmakers in 2027.

That compressed schedule creates a scenario where lawmakers’ views may shift based on whether they expect to return to Congress—or whether their terms will end in January. In Hill’s framing, the lame duck period could become a decisive moment for CLARITY, because members will have clarity on their own electoral futures and the likelihood of their continued influence.

At the same time, the political calculus underscores a key uncertainty for crypto market participants: even if agencies continue to move, the absence of a comprehensive legislative package could keep regulatory boundaries dependent on agency interpretation and court challenges.

SEC and CFTC leadership vacancies add strain

Hill’s remarks arrive as both regulators face leadership staffing gaps. As of Wednesday, Cointelegraph reported that there are seven empty vacancies across the SEC and CFTC at the leadership level.

That staffing picture includes a recent change at the SEC: Commissioner Hester Peirce announced her resignation last week, leaving Chair Paul Atkins and Commissioner Mark Uyeda at the SEC. On the CFTC side, Michael Selig serves as chair and the sole commissioner, concentrating decision-making authority more narrowly than in a fuller commission structure.

For investors and industry builders, this matters because staffing and commission composition can affect how quickly rulemaking advances, how enforcement priorities are shaped, and how much institutional “continuity” exists while major crypto oversight proposals are developed and reviewed.

Regulatory direction under a new executive push

The backdrop to Hill’s comments is the leadership-level push toward clearer crypto regulation. The heads of the SEC and CFTC—Paul Atkins and Michael Selig, respectively—announced plans to move forward with crypto regulation at the direction of U.S. President Donald Trump.

That executive impetus, combined with the agencies’ own proposed rulemaking efforts, suggests regulators are attempting to fill the gap left by Congress. However, Hill’s central argument is that without a legislative framework, the industry may face a patchwork of rules and interpretations that can evolve as administrations change and as proposed agency models move through additional procedural steps.

Hill’s insistence that CLARITY is still worth pursuing during the lame duck period can be read as a signal that he views the current approach as insufficiently “permanent” for an industry that depends on consistent expectations—especially for token issuers, exchanges, and other market participants subject to changing regulatory standards.

For now, market participants should watch two things closely: whether CLARITY gains traction in the limited lame duck window, and how the SEC and CFTC proceed given the reported leadership vacancies. The next steps from both agencies could shape compliance expectations even if a congressional fix does not arrive in time.