BlackRock has backed the CLARITY Act, adding one of Wall Street’s largest voices to the debate over how the United States should regulate digital asset markets.

In a statement provided to Politico (source), BlackRock Global Head of Market Development Samara Cohen described the bill as an important step toward an investor-focused regulatory framework. Cohen said the legislation could support innovation while preserving the transparency, resilience and investor protections expected in U.S. capital markets.

The statement came as the Crypto Council for Innovation published a “Myths v Facts” paper (source) arguing that the legislation would strengthen oversight, improve customer protection and enhance enforcement against illicit finance. CCI represents the digital asset industry, so its paper makes the case for passage rather than offering an independent assessment. BlackRock’s support carries a different weight because the company already operates large regulated investment, tokenization and digital asset businesses.

The CLARITY Act is a market-structure bill, meaning it is aimed at defining how digital asset trading, custody and related activities are overseen rather than regulating only one product category. That distinction matters for firms that need to know which rules apply before launching products, connecting clients to markets or building tokenized versions of traditional assets.

BlackRock’s Role in the Debate

BlackRock reported $15.3 trillion in assets under management at the end of June, according to its second-quarter 2026 results (source). A regulatory position from a firm of that size is harder for lawmakers to treat as a request coming only from crypto-native companies.

The company also has direct commercial exposure to the rules under debate. Larry Fink’s 2026 chairman’s letter (source) said BlackRock managed nearly $80 billion through digital asset exchange-traded products and $65 billion in stablecoin reserves. The firm also operates the largest tokenized Treasury fund.

Fink’s position on crypto has changed significantly over time. In 2017, he described cryptocurrencies as an indication of money-laundering demand (source). BlackRock later launched major Bitcoin and Ethereum products, expanded into tokenized funds and became involved in stablecoin reserve management.

Fink acknowledged that shift during an official BlackRock interview published in 2025 (source), saying that he had grown and learned. BlackRock is now seeking clearer rules for a market that its chief executive once viewed largely through the lens of financial crime.

Goldman, Fidelity and Franklin Templeton Support Progress

Goldman Sachs CEO David Solomon has said he supports moving the CLARITY Act forward (source). Solomon acknowledged that the bill is imperfect, but argued that a defined market structure would improve stability and give digital asset businesses clearer conditions for development.

Fidelity and Franklin Templeton have also endorsed the legislation. Fidelity Public Policy described the bill as a balanced framework that could provide statutory clarity, benefit American investors and support the country’s position in digital asset markets.

Franklin Templeton wrote on X: “Franklin Templeton supports passage of the CLARITY Act. The bill would make clear how crypto is regulated. Investors would know what protections apply. Firms would know which regulators they answer to. It’s time to provide the industry the clarity it needs.”

— Franklin Templeton (@FranklnTempletn) July 27, 2026

https://x.com/FranklnTempletn/status/2081809541000200586?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

Charles Schwab has taken a more measured approach. Its July 24 market research (source) described passage of the bill as a key fundamental catalyst that could revive institutional interest. That was a research assessment rather than the same type of formal endorsement issued by BlackRock, Goldman or Fidelity.

The firms have different business models, but they face the same practical problem: unclear asset classifications make custody, trading, tokenization and product development more difficult to plan. In traditional finance, those decisions depend on predictable legal treatment, regulator jurisdiction and compliance obligations; digital assets have often required firms to manage those questions with less statutory direction.

Political Disputes Remain Unresolved

Institutional support has not resolved the disputes that continue to slow the legislation.

One of the main fights concerns stablecoin rewards. The latest framework would prohibit interest-like payments on passive stablecoin balances while allowing some rewards tied to transactions or platform activity. Banks argue that such incentives could pull deposits away from regulated lenders, while crypto companies say broader restrictions would protect banks from competition.

Goldman’s position is notable because Solomon supports moving the bill forward while other banking executives continue to oppose its treatment of stablecoin rewards. His comments focused on the value of establishing market rules, rather than dismissing the banking sector’s concerns.

Political ethics rules are another obstacle. Lawmakers disagree over how strongly the bill should restrict senior officials and their families from issuing, promoting or profiting from digital assets, as well as who should enforce those restrictions.

The scope of compliance obligations also remains contested, especially for decentralized platforms and software developers that do not hold customer assets. Those questions go beyond deciding which regulator oversees a token, because they affect whether software providers, trading venues and intermediaries would face registration, reporting or other ongoing duties.

What Institutional Support Shows

BlackRock, Goldman and Fidelity have commercial reasons for seeking passage of the CLARITY Act. Clearer rules would reduce legal uncertainty around businesses they already operate or may expand.

Large firms may also be better positioned than smaller competitors to absorb licensing, reporting and compliance costs. Their support does not prove that every provision would benefit consumers or create fair competition.

It does show that regulatory uncertainty now affects some of the largest companies in finance. The remaining question is whether lawmakers can resolve disputes over stablecoin rewards, political ethics and compliance obligations before institutional support loses momentum. Until the final legislative text is settled, the details that determine who must register, which activities are restricted and how investor protections are enforced remain as important as the headline endorsements.

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute financial, investment or legal advice. The CLARITY Act may change during the legislative process.

Methodology: BlackRock’s endorsement is based on the statement from Samara Cohen provided to Politico. No BlackRock-hosted version of that statement was found. BlackRock’s scale and digital asset exposure are based on official company publications. Goldman’s position comes from David Solomon’s reported comments, while Fidelity and Schwab are described according to their published statements and research.