Galaxy Research has lowered its probability estimate for CLARITY Act passage in 2026 from 75% to 60%, the first institutional downgrade since the firm raised its odds to 75% following the Senate Banking Committee’s 15-9 markup vote on May 14.
The revision was published by Galaxy head of firmwide research Alex Thorn on June 5, in a research note distributed to Galaxy clients and accompanied by a public post on X. The downgrade arrives at a particularly sensitive moment in the CLARITY Act timeline—with Senate floor time tightening, no public movement on outstanding contentious provisions, and the August recess functioning as the operative hard deadline.
What Thorn Cited
Thorn’s note identifies two compounding factors behind the 15-point downgrade.
The first is the Senate calendar. Last night’s FISA reauthorization vote failed, meaning next week will be dominated by FISA legislation. That follows the Senate already losing a week on the anti-weaponization fund debate that consumed floor time through the end of May. The Senate’s available floor time was already compressed; FISA’s bumping into the next week makes it more so.
The second factor is the absence of any visible procedural progress on the CLARITY Act this week. Thorn writes: “Add to the calendar problem the fact that we didn’t get any headlines this week about paths forward on outstanding issues like ethics or illicit finance.” Those are the two provisions that have served as the central blockers to securing the 60 votes the bill needs to pass.
“I’m still optimistic but the timing matters a lot now and odds could shift wildly as the calendar progresses,” Thorn added in his X post.
The combination — calendar pressure plus negotiation silence — is what drove the 15-point cut.
How Galaxy’s Framework Distinguishes 60% From Outright Pessimism
Thorn emphasized that 60% odds still describe a bill that is more likely than not to become law in 2026. In his note, he writes: “60% still describes a bill that is more likely than not to become law this year. The committee vote was real, the administration remains engaged, and the bill is formally on the calendar.”
The downgrade represents a recalibration based on procedural and timing factors, not a fundamental shift in the underlying coalition supporting the bill. The 15 Republicans and two Democrats who voted in favor at the committee stage remain in place. The Trump administration’s support remains intact. The Senate Agriculture Committee version has been reconciled with the Banking Committee version, removing one of the procedural prerequisites.
What has changed is the floor-time math. With the Senate losing weeks to FISA, ICE and Border Patrol funding, and other unfinished reconciliation business, the window between “bill on calendar” and “bill on floor” is shrinking. Senate Majority Leader John Thune has not committed to a specific floor date for CLARITY Act consideration, and Thorn’s downgrade reflects the increasing improbability that such a commitment arrives in time to clear the August recess.
What Would Move Galaxy’s Estimate Back Up
Thorn’s note lists two specific catalysts that would prompt Galaxy to raise its odds back toward the previous 75% level.
The first is a credible floor commitment from Senate leadership for early-to-mid July. Without that commitment, the path narrows quickly—the Senate has roughly four working weeks left in June and three more in July before the August recess, and CLARITY Act floor time competes with FISA, immigration funding, Supreme Court nominations, and other unfinished reconciliation business.
The second is visible progress on the ethics and illicit finance provisions — the two issues that have functioned as the central negotiation points blocking the coalition expansion needed for 60 votes. The Van Hollen amendment on ethics restrictions was rejected during the May 14 markup, but the issue has continued to be the central point of Democratic resistance to advancing the bill. As TCT previously reported, Senator Cynthia Lummis has been publicly pressing the case for the CLARITY Act as a national competitiveness issue, but the procedural negotiations have remained largely behind-the-scenes.
If either catalyst materializes, Thorn indicated the probability estimate could move back up. Absent both, the path forward becomes increasingly dependent on either a major procedural shortcut from leadership or a forced floor vote without the ethics provisions fully resolved.
The Pressure Campaign Continues
The Galaxy downgrade arrives in the middle of a sustained public pressure campaign by CLARITY Act proponents. Senator Lummis posted on June 1 framing the bill as “a decision about whether America leads the next financial system or watches from the sidelines” and warned on May 30 that China would not wait for U.S. crypto rules.
Other proponents have continued to apply pressure. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent published a Wall Street Journal op-ed framing the bill as a national security priority. Senator Bernie Moreno (R-OH) has warned that failure to advance the bill in the current window could push the next viable opportunity beyond the 2026 midterm elections. Senator Bill Hagerty (R-TN) has continued to characterize the remaining issues as solvable.
The institutional response has also continued to build. As TCT reported, JPMorgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, and Wells Fargo are building a shared tokenized deposit network through The Clearing House targeting a 2027 launch — a direct competitive response to the stablecoin provisions the CLARITY Act would establish. Galaxy itself executed a $10 million OTC prediction market trade with Arca on CLARITY Act outcomes as the launch transaction for its new institutional prediction markets desk on June 2.
The combined messaging—political pressure, regulatory positioning, and institutional capital allocation—has not yet translated into procedural action on the Senate floor. The Galaxy downgrade is, in effect, a measurement of that gap.
What Comes Next
The signals to monitor are concrete. Galaxy’s estimate will move in response to floor commitments from Senate leadership, public deal announcements on ethics or illicit finance provisions, and any procedural movement that signals the bill is being prepared for floor consideration before the August recess.
Conversely, additional weeks of calendar slippage, continued silence on the outstanding contentious provisions, or any indication that Senate leadership intends to defer the bill to the fall would likely prompt further downward revisions.
Thorn closed his note with an observation about how rapidly the situation could shift: “60% still describes a bill that is more likely than not to become law this year. But that probability is now being measured in days, not weeks. We will update again once leadership signals its intentions for floor scheduling.”
For TCT readers tracking the CLARITY Act through TCT’s ongoing coverage cluster, the Galaxy downgrade is the first major institutional revision to track. It is also unlikely to be the last before the August recess clarifies whether the bill survives 2026 or moves into 2027.
