House Democrats are discussing a new crypto market structure bill for the next Congress, crypto journalist Eleanor Terrett reported on 4 November 2026, citing three industry sources who had spoken with Democratic staff. The proposal, as reported, would give the Securities and Exchange Commission, known as the SEC, a larger supervisory role in crypto markets and narrow the remit of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, known as the CFTC. It would build on work Democrats have already done on crypto legislation, and it is aimed at the Congress that convenes on 3 January 2027. No bill text has been released, and no introduction date is confirmed, so the discussions are preliminary and the proposal should be understood as a plan under discussion, not as a bill that has been introduced.
The report is significant because it suggests that Democrats are preparing a distinct approach to crypto market structure, one that differs in emphasis from the approach taken in the CLARITY Act. That earlier bill, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, passed the House but failed in the Senate, and the new discussions appear to be an attempt to learn from that experience and to set out a Democratic alternative. The sources for the report were industry sources who had spoken with Democratic staff, and the account is presented here as reporting based on those conversations, not as an official announcement from Democratic leadership.
The timing of the report also matters. It came on 4 November 2026, in the days after the midterm elections, and it looks ahead to the next Congress rather than to the remaining weeks of the current one. The proposal is therefore framed as a matter for the new Congress, which convenes on 3 January 2027, rather than as a measure to be taken up in the lame-duck session. That forward-looking character is part of what makes the report notable: it is about how Democrats intend to approach crypto regulation in the next Congress, not about a vote expected in the current one.
At the centre of the proposal, as reported, is Rep. Maxine Waters and her Crypto Investor and Consumer Bill of Rights. That measure was her amendment to the 2025 CLARITY Act, and the new proposal would expand it into a broader market structure bill. Waters is a senior Democrat on financial services issues in the House, and her Bill of Rights has been the vehicle through which Democrats have sought to set out protections for crypto investors and consumers. Expanding it into a full market structure bill would take those protections and place them within a wider framework for how crypto markets are overseen.
The proposal would also draw on Democratic provisions from the CLARITY Act and on provisions that Senate Democrats and Republicans had negotiated before September’s failed Senate vote. That detail suggests that the new bill would not be written from scratch, but would bring together elements that have already been discussed and, in some cases, negotiated across party lines. The inclusion of provisions negotiated in the Senate before the failed vote points to an effort to build on work that has already been done, rather than starting the legislative process afresh.
The House Democrats Crypto Market Structure Bill: What Has Been Reported
The report by Eleanor Terrett, published on 4 November 2026, is the basis for what is known about the proposal. Terrett is a crypto journalist, and her report cited three industry sources who had spoken with Democratic staff. The use of three sources gives the report a basis in conversations with people who have been in contact with the staff working on the proposal, but the report is still a report of discussions, not a publication of the bill itself. No bill text has been released, and no introduction date is confirmed, so the details of the proposal are known only as they have been described by those sources.
The central feature of the proposal, as reported, is the larger supervisory role it would give to the SEC. The SEC is the regulator that oversees securities markets, and a bigger role for the agency in crypto would mean that more of the crypto market would fall under its supervision. The proposal would narrow the remit of the CFTC, the regulator that oversees commodity markets, so that the balance between the two agencies would shift towards the SEC. That shift is a substantive choice about how crypto should be regulated, because the two agencies have different remits, different approaches and different histories of overseeing financial markets.
The proposal is described as a market structure bill, which means that it would set out the framework for how crypto markets are organised and overseen, rather than dealing with a single issue in isolation. A market structure bill addresses questions such as which regulator oversees which parts of the market, what rules apply to the firms that operate in it, and what protections are available to the people who use it. The Democratic proposal, as reported, would address those questions by expanding Waters’ Bill of Rights into a broader framework, and by giving the SEC a larger role within that framework.
It is important to keep the status of the proposal clear. The discussions are preliminary, and they are aimed at the next Congress, which convenes on 3 January 2027. There is no bill text to examine, no introduction date to note, and no vote scheduled. The proposal should therefore be described as a plan under discussion, based on reporting that cites industry sources who had spoken with Democratic staff. It is not an introduced bill, and it should not be presented as one.
The report also notes that the proposal could include ethics restrictions on crypto activities by President Trump and other federal officials. That element, if it is included, would add a distinct strand to the bill, one that concerns the conduct of public officials rather than the structure of the market itself. The ethics restrictions are described as a possibility, not as a settled feature, and the reporting does not set out the specific form they would take. They are therefore best understood as an element that may be part of the proposal, rather than as a confirmed provision.
A Bigger Role for the SEC, a Narrower One for the CFTC
The division of responsibility between the SEC and the CFTC is one of the central questions in crypto regulation, and the Democratic proposal, as reported, would settle that question in favour of a larger SEC role. The SEC oversees securities markets, and its involvement in crypto has been a matter of debate for years, with questions about which crypto assets should be treated as securities and which should not. A bigger supervisory role for the SEC would mean that the agency’s approach to those questions would carry more weight in the market as a whole.
The CFTC, by contrast, oversees commodity markets, and its remit in crypto has been the subject of discussion in the various market structure proposals that have been considered in Congress. Narrowing the CFTC’s remit, as the Democratic proposal would do, would mean that less of the crypto market would fall under the CFTC’s supervision. The shift would not remove the CFTC from crypto regulation altogether, as far as the reporting indicates, but it would change the balance between the two agencies, giving the SEC the larger share of the supervisory role.
The choice between the SEC and the CFTC is not only a technical question about which agency does what. It also reflects different views about how crypto markets should be regulated and what kind of protection investors and consumers should have. The SEC’s approach to securities regulation is built around disclosure, registration and investor protection, while the CFTC’s approach to commodity markets has a different emphasis. A bill that gives the SEC a bigger role is therefore making a judgment about which regulatory approach is more appropriate for crypto markets, and that judgment is at the heart of the Democratic proposal.
The reporting does not set out the precise lines along which the SEC’s role would be expanded or the CFTC’s remit narrowed, and it would be wrong to present specifics that have not been reported. What is known is the direction of the shift: towards the SEC and away from the CFTC. The details of how that shift would be put into effect, and which activities would fall under which agency, would only become clear if and when bill text is released. Until then, the proposal is best described in the general terms in which it has been reported.
The shift also has a political dimension. Different parts of the crypto industry have different views about which regulator should oversee them, and the choice of regulator can affect the rules that firms must follow and the costs of compliance. A proposal that favours the SEC over the CFTC will therefore be read by industry participants as a signal about the kind of regulation Democrats intend to pursue in the next Congress. The report, based on industry sources who had spoken with Democratic staff, reflects that industry attention to the question, and it suggests that the balance between the two agencies is one of the features of the proposal that industry is watching most closely.
Building on Maxine Waters’ Bill of Rights
Rep. Maxine Waters’ Crypto Investor and Consumer Bill of Rights is the foundation on which the new proposal would be built. The Bill of Rights was her amendment to the 2025 CLARITY Act, and it set out protections for crypto investors and consumers. Expanding it into a broader market structure bill would take those protections and place them within a framework that covers the market as a whole, rather than leaving them as an amendment to a bill written by others.
Waters is a prominent Democratic voice on financial services, and her Bill of Rights reflects a focus on the people who use crypto markets, rather than only on the firms that operate in them. The emphasis on investors and consumers is a distinctive feature of the Democratic approach, and it is one that the new proposal would carry forward. By building the market structure bill around the Bill of Rights, Democrats would be making investor and consumer protection a central part of the framework, rather than an addition to it.
The expansion from an amendment into a full bill is also a significant step. An amendment to another bill operates within the framework of that bill, and its scope is limited by the bill it amends. A standalone market structure bill, by contrast, sets its own framework, and it can address questions that an amendment cannot. The proposal to expand the Bill of Rights in this way therefore suggests that Democrats intend to set out their own comprehensive approach to crypto market structure, rather than working within the framework established by the CLARITY Act.
The reporting does not set out the specific protections that would be included in the expanded bill, beyond the general description of it as building on the Bill of Rights. It would be wrong to list particular protections as if they had been confirmed when they have not been reported. What can be said is that the proposal would draw on the Bill of Rights as its starting point, and that investor and consumer protection would be at the centre of the approach. The details would depend on the bill text, which has not been released.
Waters’ role in the proposal also points to the continuity of the Democratic approach to crypto. The Bill of Rights was put forward in 2025, and the new proposal would carry that work forward into the next Congress. The continuity suggests that Democrats are building on their earlier efforts rather than starting anew, and that the protections Waters set out remain a priority for the party as it prepares its approach to the Congress convening on 3 January 2027.
What the CLARITY Act Experience Left Behind
The CLARITY Act, the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, passed the House by 294 votes to 134 on 17 July 2025. That margin was substantial, and it showed that the bill had support beyond a single party in the House. The House vote was a significant step for crypto legislation, because it demonstrated that a market structure bill could command a majority in the chamber. The bill’s passage in the House was therefore a milestone, even though the bill did not become law.
The bill then went to the Senate, where it failed a cloture vote by 49 votes to 50 on 15 September 2026. A cloture vote is a procedural vote to end debate and move to a final vote, and it requires 60 votes to succeed. The CLARITY Act fell short of that threshold, with 49 votes in favour and 50 against, and the bill did not advance. The failure in the Senate meant that the House’s work did not lead to a law, and the question of crypto market structure remained unresolved.
The Senate vote was the culmination of negotiations that had taken place before it, and the new Democratic proposal would draw on provisions that Senate Democrats and Republicans had negotiated before that failed vote. That detail is important, because it shows that the new proposal would not ignore the work done in the Senate. Instead, it would take provisions that had been negotiated across party lines and include them in the new bill. The inclusion of negotiated provisions suggests an attempt to build on areas where agreement had already been reached, even though the overall bill did not pass.
The proposal would also draw on Democratic provisions from the CLARITY Act itself. Those provisions were part of the bill as it passed the House, and they reflect the Democratic contribution to that legislation. Drawing on them for the new bill would carry forward the elements of the CLARITY Act that Democrats supported, while setting them within a new framework that gives the SEC a bigger role. The combination of Democratic CLARITY Act provisions and Senate-negotiated provisions would therefore bring together work from both chambers.
The history of the CLARITY Act also helps explain why Democrats are discussing a new bill now. The House passage in July 2025 showed that a market structure bill could pass one chamber, while the Senate failure in September 2026 showed that the bill as written could not command the 60 votes needed for cloture. A new proposal, written for the next Congress, would be an attempt to address that failure by setting out a different approach, one that reflects Democratic priorities and that draws on the negotiations that took place before the Senate vote. Whether that approach would fare better in the Senate is a question that cannot be answered until a bill is introduced and voted on.
Ethics Restrictions and the Trump Question
The proposal could include ethics restrictions on crypto activities by President Trump and other federal officials, according to the reporting. That element, if included, would address a question that is separate from the structure of crypto markets themselves, namely whether public officials should be subject to restrictions on their involvement in crypto activities. The inclusion of such restrictions would make the bill about more than market structure, because it would also set standards for the conduct of officials.
The reporting describes the ethics restrictions as a possibility, using the word “could”, and it does not set out the specific form they would take. It would therefore be wrong to present the restrictions as a settled feature of the bill, or to describe their content in detail when no details have been reported. What is known is that the proposal could include them, that they would concern crypto activities by the president and other federal officials, and that they are under discussion as part of the broader proposal.
The reference to President Trump by name is a notable part of the reporting, because it identifies the president as one of the officials whose crypto activities would be covered by the restrictions. The reporting also refers to “other federal officials”, which suggests that the restrictions would not be limited to the president alone, but would apply more broadly. The scope of the restrictions, however, is not set out in the reporting, and the question of which officials would be covered and in what way remains open.
Ethics restrictions of this kind raise questions that go beyond crypto regulation, because they concern the relationship between public office and private financial activity. A bill that included them would be making a statement about the standards that should apply to officials who hold public office. The reporting does not set out the specific activities that would be covered by the restrictions, and this article does not add to the reporting on that point. The point, as reported, is that ethics restrictions on crypto activities by the president and other federal officials are under discussion as a possible element of the proposal.
Whether the ethics restrictions will be included in the end will depend on the discussions that are still taking place. The proposal is preliminary, no bill text has been released, and the elements described in the reporting are subject to change. The ethics restrictions should therefore be understood as one of the features that may be part of the bill, rather than as a confirmed provision. Their inclusion or exclusion will be one of the things to watch if and when the bill is introduced.
What Is Not Settled Yet
Several features of the proposal remain unsettled, and it is important to be clear about what is not known. No bill text has been released, which means that the specific language of the proposal, the precise definitions it would use, and the exact rules it would set out are not available for examination. Any account of the proposal must therefore rely on the reporting that has described it in general terms, and must not present specifics that have not been reported.
No introduction date is confirmed, which means that it is not known when, or indeed whether, the bill will be introduced. The discussions are aimed at the next Congress, which convenes on 3 January 2027, but that does not mean that a bill will be introduced on that date, or in the opening days of the session. The timing of any introduction will depend on the discussions that are still taking place, and on the priorities of the new Congress once it convenes.
The discussions themselves are preliminary, a description that reflects the early stage of the work. Preliminary discussions are not the same as a finished proposal, and they can change as they develop. The features described in the reporting, including the larger SEC role, the narrower CFTC remit, and the possible ethics restrictions, are the features that have been described at this stage. They may be retained, modified or dropped as the discussions continue, and the final form of any bill may differ from the proposal as it has been reported.
The sources for the report are also worth noting. The report cited three industry sources who had spoken with Democratic staff. Industry sources are people in the crypto industry who have been in contact with the staff working on the proposal, and their accounts are second-hand in the sense that they reflect what staff have told them. The report is therefore based on conversations, not on documents, and it should be read as an account of discussions rather than as a definitive description of a bill. The distinction matters, because a bill, once introduced, can be read and examined in full, while a report of discussions can only describe what has been said about the proposal so far.
The absence of bill text also means that the practical effects of the proposal cannot yet be assessed in detail. A market structure bill would affect firms, investors and consumers in specific ways, but those effects would depend on the precise rules it set out. Until the text is available, any assessment of the proposal’s effects would be speculative, and this article does not attempt to make such an assessment. The proposal is described here as it has been reported, with its status and its limits made clear.
What to Watch Next
The first thing to watch is whether bill text is released, and when. The release of text would be the moment when the proposal moves from a matter of reporting to a matter of record, and it would allow the specific provisions to be examined in detail. Until that happens, the proposal will remain a matter of discussion, described in the general terms set out in the reporting. Any release of text, or any confirmation of an introduction date, would be a significant development.
A second question is how the balance between the SEC and the CFTC is set out in any eventual text. The direction of the shift has been reported, with the SEC given a bigger role and the CFTC’s remit narrowed, but the details of that shift have not been. The way the two agencies’ responsibilities are divided in the text will be one of the most closely watched features of the bill, because it will determine how crypto markets are overseen in practice. Industry participants, in particular, will be looking at that division, as the report’s reliance on industry sources suggests.
A third question concerns the ethics restrictions, and whether they are included in the eventual bill. The restrictions have been described as a possibility, and their inclusion would add a distinct dimension to the legislation. Whether they are retained, and in what form, will be a measure of how far Democrats intend to go in addressing the conduct of public officials in relation to crypto. The question is open, and it will only be answered when a bill is introduced.
Finally, the proposal should be watched in the context of the next Congress, which convenes on 3 January 2027. The discussions are aimed at that Congress, and the bill, if it is introduced, will be a matter for the new session. The composition of the new Congress, the priorities of its leadership, and the state of the crypto market at that time will all shape how the proposal is received. For now, the reported facts are these: House Democrats are discussing a new crypto market structure bill for the next Congress, as reported by Eleanor Terrett on 4 November 2026, citing three industry sources who had spoken with Democratic staff; the proposal would expand Rep. Maxine Waters’ Crypto Investor and Consumer Bill of Rights into a broader bill, give the SEC a larger supervisory role and narrow the CFTC’s remit, draw on Democratic CLARITY Act provisions and Senate-negotiated provisions, and could include ethics restrictions on crypto activities by President Trump and other federal officials; no bill text has been released and no introduction date is confirmed; and the CLARITY Act passed the House 294-134 on 17 July 2025 but failed a Senate cloture vote 49-50 on 15 September 2026, short of the 60 votes needed.
Sources
USN reviewed reporting from multiple outlets for this story. Read more from Decrypt, Crypto.news and Bitcoin Magazine.