Of everyone involved in the CLARITY Act fight, two senators from opposite parties ended up doing more of the actual, substantive work than anyone in either party's leadership: Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Senator Ruben Gallego (D-AZ). Their ethics compromise — the piece of the bill aimed at restricting federal officials, including the president's family, from profiting off crypto ventures while shaping crypto policy — was the single biggest reason the bill got as close as it did. It's also worth noting plainly: Gallego voted no anyway when it counted.
Tillis: an ethics ultimatum from an unlikely place
Tillis made his position a condition, not a preference, telling reporters plainly: "There has to be ethics language in the bill before it leaves the Senate, or I'll go from one of the people working on negotiating it to voting against it." That's a Republican senator aligning with Democratic priorities — fellow negotiators pushing for strict bans on federal officials profiting from crypto ventures, including Senator Adam Schiff, found an ally in Tillis rather than a typical partisan opponent. It matters that Tillis is not seeking reelection: retiring senators have historically had more room to take positions that put them at odds with donor or leadership pressure, since there's no reelection campaign for that stance to complicate.
Gallego: crypto's most visible Democratic ally, with limits
Gallego co-led the Senate Banking Committee's first Digital Assets Subcommittee hearing and laid out a three-part framework for his own approach to crypto policy: foster innovation because "the United States must lead in this space," build a clear regulatory framework that avoids "regulatory arbitrage," and protect consumers — specifically flagging his concern that young Black and Latino men have been disproportionate victims of crypto fraud. That combination made him the industry's clearest Democratic partner in the Senate, a position that also drew scrutiny; his ties to crypto-industry donors have been reported on by outlets including Rolling Stone as a point of tension with progressive critics who argue he's gotten too close to the industry he's supposed to help regulate.
What they actually built
The compromise that emerged from months of Tillis-Gallego negotiation, and that the White House reportedly agreed to roughly 80% of, would have required certain officials to divest meaningful crypto holdings or place them in a blind trust, given both state attorneys general and the Justice Department authority to sue exchanges that list assets barred under the bill, and extended the restrictions to federally elected officials, judges, and their spouses. It's a genuinely substantive piece of drafting — not a symbolic gesture — built by two senators who don't agree on much else.
“There has to be ethics language in the bill before it leaves the Senate, or I'll go from one of the people working on negotiating it to voting against it.” — Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC)
The twist worth sitting with honestly
Despite co-authoring the compromise, Gallego was among the fifty Democratic no votes on September 15, alongside fellow negotiators Kirsten Gillibrand, Mark Warner, Cory Booker, Raphael Warnock, Angela Alsobrooks, and Catherine Cortez Masto. Not one Democrat crossed over. That's a genuinely important data point that's easy to lose in the ethics-compromise narrative: the deal these two spent months building didn't even secure its own co-author's vote when the roll was actually called. Whether that reflects the compromise arriving too late to be formally locked in before the vote, or a judgment that it still didn't go far enough, isn't something either senator has said plainly on the record — but the gap between the negotiation and the vote count is real, and worth naming rather than glossing over.
Why they're still the two to watch
If a revival attempt surfaces during the lame-duck session, as Senator John Kennedy has suggested it might, it will most plausibly start from whatever draft Tillis and Gallego left on the table rather than from scratch — Tillis remains in the Senate through the end of his term regardless of the midterms, and Gallego remains the negotiating partner Republicans would need back at the table if a coalition ever reforms. Neither fact guarantees a different outcome next time. It does mean any future attempt runs through the same two people, working from the same unresolved sticking points.