The U.S. Senate is considering a major crypto market structure proposal known as the Clarity Act, and the bill is facing resistance from two influential corners of the American economy at the same time: organized labor and the traditional banking industry. Ahead of a scheduled Thursday markup and vote in the Senate Banking Committee, the debate has sharpened around a central question: would a clearer legal pathway for digital assets strengthen innovation, or would it push crypto-related volatility deeper into retirement systems, public finance, and the broader real economy?
According to correspondence first obtained by CNBC, five of the nation’s largest labor organizations contacted members of the Senate Banking Committee to urge opposition to the bill. Those organizations were the AFL-CIO, the Service Employees International Union, the American Federation of Teachers, the National Education Association, and the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees. Their intervention is significant because it frames crypto legislation not simply as a technology or market issue, but as a worker protection and retirement security issue.
Why labor unions say the Clarity Act creates unacceptable risk
In their joint message to senators, the unions argued that the legislation would “jeopardize the stability of workers’ retirement plans, including public pensions, and introduce significant volatility to retirement savings accounts.” That statement captures the heart of their concern. If digital assets become more deeply integrated into mainstream financial channels through a more formal market structure framework, pension systems and retirement accounts could end up carrying more exposure to a notoriously volatile asset class.
The unions also warned that the bill effectively invites the cryptocurrency industry to take outsized risks. In their words, if those risky bets fail, the losses would not be borne by “crypto billionaires,” but by working people and retirees. This is a political as well as economic argument. Labor groups are highlighting what they see as an asymmetry in the current policy push: upside for issuers, platforms, and large investors, but downside for households whose savings are meant to be conservative and long-term.
The AFL-CIO went further in a separate email sent directly to members of the Banking Committee. It argued that, absent sufficient regulation, embedding cryptocurrencies and other digital assets into the real economy would have a destabilizing effect while benefiting issuers and platforms at the expense of working people. That language reflects a broader fear shared by labor advocates: once digital asset products receive a stronger regulatory foothold, they may spread into savings products, institutional allocations, and public retirement systems faster than safeguards can keep up.
The timing of the labor push matters. The Senate Banking Committee was scheduled to mark up and vote on the bill on Thursday, making this a critical moment in the legislative process. Although lawmakers have spent months in bipartisan discussions over the proposal, it remains uncertain whether any Democrats on the committee are prepared to support it. Several legislators have said the bill still needs more work on ethics standards, conflict-of-interest rules, and security-related provisions, all of which could become deciding issues as the measure moves through committee.
Banking industry opposition centers on stablecoins and deposit competition
Labor organizations are not alone in trying to slow or reshape the bill. The American Bankers Association, or ABA, has also pushed back against updated language in the legislation, particularly where stablecoin holdings are concerned. For banks, the issue is less about pension risk and more about competitive structure. If stablecoins gain clearer legal support under federal legislation, they could become more credible alternatives to bank deposits in payments and cash management.
ABA CEO Rob Nichols wrote to bank executives on May 10 to address one such concern. He said that a provision barring crypto firms from paying yield on payment stablecoins still poses a threat to traditional bank deposits. In his view, the framework could “unnecessarily incentivize the flight of bank deposits.” The implication is that even when Congress tries to limit aggressive yield-bearing stablecoin models, the act of legitimizing payment stablecoins may still encourage money to move away from banks and toward digital asset platforms or blockchain-based instruments.
This puts banks and labor unions on the same side of the vote, even though their motivations differ. Labor groups are focused on retirement safety, public pensions, and the possibility that workers could end up absorbing systemic losses. Banks are more concerned about deposit outflows, payments competition, and erosion of the role traditional institutions play in the monetary system. Their reasoning is different, but their opposition adds weight to the political headwinds facing the bill.
By contrast, parts of the crypto industry have supported the revised language. Coinbase, for example, voiced approval of the restriction in question. That detail is important because it shows that not every digital asset company is seeking the broadest possible flexibility on every product line. Some major firms may be willing to accept targeted limits if doing so helps secure a broader legislative framework that offers regulatory clarity and a more stable operating environment.
Michael Saylor backs the bill as a catalyst for digital capital and BTC validation
Among the most prominent public supporters of the Clarity Act is Michael Saylor, Executive Chairman of Strategy. In a post on X, Saylor said the bill “would unlock the next wave of Digital Capital, Digital Credit, and Digital Equity in the U.S. and globally.” His framing goes well beyond narrow compliance language. He presents the legislation as an enabling framework for the next phase of financial market digitization, where capital formation, lending structures, and equity-like products can operate in a more explicitly digital environment.
Saylor also described the proposal as a framework for “STRC-powered digital yield markets” and a signal of “institutional validation for BTC.” While the original report did not expand on the mechanics behind STRC in this context, the broader message was clear: if Congress creates a credible market structure for digital assets, it could encourage more institutional participation and reinforce Bitcoin’s position as a recognized asset within mainstream financial architecture.
That endorsement matters because the crypto industry has identified the bill as its top legislative priority in the current session. A market structure bill can shape everything from platform oversight and asset classification to stablecoin treatment, disclosure rules, and investor access. In practical terms, the outcome of this legislative fight could influence how exchanges, token issuers, and institutional allocators operate in the United States for years to come.
Even so, momentum in Washington is not guaranteed. Whether the Clarity Act can clear committee and eventually reach the full Senate now depends on lawmakers’ ability to manage resistance from organized labor, traditional banking interests, and a bloc of Senate Democrats who have not committed their support. Those senators remain concerned about ethics rules, conflict-of-interest protections, and security provisions. So while the crypto industry sees the bill as a breakthrough opportunity, its path forward still runs through a complicated negotiation over financial stability, worker protection, and the future boundaries of digital asset regulation in the United States.