Ripple publicly threw its support behind the Senate’s CLARITY Act ahead of a key markup in the Banking Committee, joining a broader chorus of industry and policy figures who say the bill could provide much-needed structure for the U.S. digital asset market. The company’s executives framed the proposal as an important step toward clearer rules, stronger protections for market participants, and a more durable foundation for innovation in the United States.
Ripple CEO Brad Garlinghouse used social media to praise lawmakers for moving the legislation forward, describing the moment as especially significant for the future of U.S. crypto policy. His message centered on a straightforward argument: millions of Americans are already participating in the crypto economy, and they should not be left without the same legal clarity and protections that exist in more established asset classes. In his view, if the United States intends to lead the next phase of digital finance, legislation like the CLARITY Act cannot remain theoretical for much longer.
Garlinghouse said Ripple supports the bill because market participants deserve consistent rules and safeguards. He also argued that U.S. leadership in crypto is not optional if the country wants to remain competitive in a rapidly evolving global financial system. His remarks positioned the bill not merely as a technical market structure measure, but as a policy signal about whether the U.S. plans to shape the crypto sector or continue reacting to it.
Ripple’s Legal Chief Highlights Scale of U.S. Crypto Ownership
Support from Ripple was reinforced by Stuart Alderoty, the company’s chief legal officer and president of the National Crypto Association. Alderoty pointed to the association’s 2026 State of Crypto Holders Report, which estimated that 67 million Americans currently hold crypto. By invoking that figure, he underscored that digital assets are no longer a niche issue affecting only traders or startups, but one that touches a broad cross-section of U.S. society.
Alderoty described crypto holders as construction workers, retirees, small business owners, and parents across every income bracket, industry, and state. His framing suggested that the policy debate around digital assets should not be reduced to Silicon Valley or Wall Street interests alone. Instead, he argued, ordinary Americans who already own or use digital assets deserve a regulatory regime that is understandable, enforceable, and designed to protect consumers while still allowing responsible innovation to grow domestically.
That combination of consumer protection and innovation was central to Ripple’s message. The company did not present the CLARITY Act as deregulation, but rather as an attempt to build a clearer and more accountable framework for the market. For supporters, the value of the bill lies in reducing legal ambiguity while preserving space for legitimate businesses to operate in the U.S. rather than seeking friendlier jurisdictions abroad.
Broader Industry and Policy Support Builds Ahead of Markup
Ripple was not alone in endorsing the Senate measure. According to the source material, a number of industry and policy voices also backed the CLARITY Act on May 13 as the markup approached. Former White House crypto and AI czar David Sacks described the markup as a monumental step toward making the U.S. the “Crypto Capital of the World,” signaling that some supporters see the bill as part of a broader strategic competition over financial technology leadership.
Strategy CEO Phong Le likewise argued that regulatory clarity could improve financial outcomes and widen access across financial markets. That position reflects a common industry view that uncertain rules do not simply burden crypto companies; they may also limit the ability of investors and institutions to engage with digital assets under a transparent compliance framework.
Fidelity Public Policy, the policy arm of Fidelity Investments, also supported the legislation. Its view was that the bill could provide statutory clarity for digital asset markets, benefit investors, and help sustain U.S. leadership in digital assets. Fidelity’s support is notable because it reflects interest not only from crypto-native firms but also from established financial players seeking clearer legal boundaries for participating in the market.
Lawmakers Emphasize Certainty, Safeguards, and Accountability
Senator Tim Scott said families, small businesses, investors, and innovators all deserve clear rules of the road for digital assets. He argued that the Senate version of the CLARITY Act offers certainty, safeguards, and accountability, while also protecting Main Street, strengthening national security, and keeping innovation in America. That framing is important because it places the bill within a broader legislative narrative: crypto policy is being presented not only as a market issue, but as one connected to economic competitiveness and national strategic interests.
The legislative text released by Scott, Senator Cynthia Lummis, and Senator Thom Tillis on May 12 is set to serve as the basis for the Banking Committee markup on May 14. Committee Republicans said the proposal reflects negotiations with Democratic colleagues as well as input from regulators, law enforcement officials, financial institutions, innovators, and consumer advocates. In other words, supporters are presenting the bill as a product of consultation across both public- and private-sector stakeholders rather than a narrow industry wish list.
The proposal reportedly focuses on digital asset market structure rules. While the source material does not provide detailed section-by-section provisions, the emphasis on market structure suggests an attempt to define how oversight, participant responsibilities, and investor protections should function in practice. For the crypto industry, that kind of structure has long been one of the most contested and consequential areas of U.S. regulation.
Why the CLARITY Act Is Drawing Attention
The debate around the CLARITY Act reflects a larger challenge in U.S. crypto policy: the market has grown faster than the legal frameworks designed to supervise it. Supporters of the bill argue that uncertainty has created friction for companies, confusion for consumers, and uneven expectations for market participants. By establishing clearer statutory rules, they believe lawmakers can reduce ambiguity without abandoning oversight.
Just as important, supporters contend that clearer rules could make consumer protections more effective. From their perspective, uncertainty does not necessarily protect investors; instead, it can leave market participants navigating inconsistent interpretations and fragmented compliance expectations. A more defined framework, they argue, would make it easier to identify responsibilities, enforce standards, and distinguish responsible operators from bad actors.
The issue also has an international dimension. U.S. policymakers and industry advocates increasingly frame crypto legislation through the lens of competitiveness. If the U.S. fails to establish workable rules, the concern is that innovation, talent, and capital could move elsewhere. Ripple’s comments fit squarely into that narrative, presenting the CLARITY Act as part of a larger decision about whether the U.S. will actively lead in digital assets or risk losing influence in a rapidly developing sector.
For now, the immediate focus is the committee process. But the public support from Ripple, policy advocates, and financial firms shows that the CLARITY Act has become a major reference point in the ongoing debate over how the United States should regulate crypto markets. Whether or not the bill advances in its current form, the arguments surrounding it make one thing clear: regulatory clarity, consumer safeguards, and national competitiveness remain at the center of the U.S. digital asset policy conversation.