Can the SEC and CFTC’s Pro-Crypto Rules Survive a Change in Washington?

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have taken a noticeably more supportive approach to digital assets, issuing policies and rules that could make it easier for crypto businesses to operate within the United States. Their actions have encouraged investors and industry participants who have long argued that regulators relied too heavily on enforcement rather than clear guidance.

However, a major legal question remains: how secure are these pro-crypto measures? Could a future administration, a new group of commissioners, or lawmakers aligned with the so-called “anti-crypto army” reverse them? The answer depends heavily on how the rules were created, whether they are legally sound, and what type of regulatory action is involved.

Not Every Regulatory Action Is a Formal Rule

One of the most important distinctions is between a formal regulation and other types of agency action. The SEC and CFTC can influence the crypto market through rulemaking, interpretive guidance, enforcement decisions, staff statements, no-action letters, exemptions, and changes in internal priorities.

These tools do not all have the same legal status. A rule adopted after notice-and-comment procedures generally has more institutional protection than an informal statement or policy shift. By contrast, guidance issued by agency staff may be withdrawn relatively quickly, particularly if it was never intended to create binding legal obligations.

This means that the phrase “pro-crypto rules” can describe several different things. Some measures may require a lengthy legal process to repeal, while others could be modified or abandoned by new officials with comparatively little difficulty.

Why Formal Rules Are Not Easily Erased

If the SEC or CFTC adopts a formal rule under the Administrative Procedure Act, reversing it usually requires another rulemaking process. The agency would generally need to publish a proposal, explain why the change is justified, provide the public with an opportunity to comment, and issue a final rule supported by a reasoned explanation.

A new administration cannot simply announce that it dislikes an existing regulation and erase it overnight. Agencies are expected to consider the existing record, address important issues raised during the original rulemaking, and explain why the new policy is consistent with the governing statute.

Courts may also scrutinize a reversal more closely if the agency changes course without acknowledging that it is doing so. A regulator is allowed to revise its position, but it must provide a rational explanation. A sudden change that appears politically motivated, ignores evidence, or fails to account for industry reliance could face a serious legal challenge.

The Role of Court Challenges

Both pro-crypto and anti-crypto groups may attempt to challenge agency action in federal court. A rule could be attacked on the grounds that the SEC or CFTC exceeded its statutory authority, failed to follow proper procedures, misunderstood the market, or adopted a policy that conflicts with congressional intent.

Crypto regulation is particularly vulnerable to litigation because many digital assets do not fit neatly into traditional categories. Whether a token is treated as a security, commodity, investment contract, or another type of financial product can affect which agency has authority over it. Disputes over jurisdiction could therefore become central to challenges involving new regulations.

Recent Supreme Court decisions have also encouraged closer scrutiny of agency power. Courts are increasingly focused on whether regulators have clear authority from Congress when addressing major questions with significant economic consequences. If a crypto policy is viewed as a major expansion of agency authority, challengers may argue that the regulator needs more explicit statutory authorization.

Congressional and Political Risks

Congress can influence the durability of regulatory changes in several ways. It may pass legislation that clarifies or limits the SEC’s and CFTC’s authority, change funding priorities, conduct oversight hearings, or use other mechanisms to pressure agencies into changing course.

Some rules may also be subject to congressional review under applicable federal procedures. That possibility can create an additional risk for regulations adopted late in an administration or during periods of political transition. Even when a rule survives formal review, a change in leadership can still affect how aggressively it is enforced.

Agency leadership matters as well. Commissioners appointed by a new president may interpret the same statutes differently, prioritize different enforcement targets, and revise guidance. A more crypto-friendly administration could make the regulatory environment more accommodating, while a future administration could emphasize investor protection, market integrity, and consumer risks.

Why Industry Reliance Could Matter

Crypto companies, exchanges, investors, and financial institutions may begin making long-term decisions based on regulatory changes. They could launch new products, register businesses, invest in infrastructure, or commit capital to the United States because the rules appear more predictable.

That reliance does not make a regulation immune from repeal, but it can raise the legal and practical cost of reversing it. An agency considering a major policy change may need to evaluate the effects on businesses and investors that acted in good faith. Courts may ask whether the regulator adequately considered those consequences.

Still, reliance cuts both ways. If a policy was clearly temporary, informal, or subject to future review, affected companies may have a weaker argument that they were entitled to expect it would remain unchanged.

What Crypto Businesses Should Watch

Companies operating in the digital-asset sector should avoid treating any regulatory development as permanent until it has survived both legal and political review. Businesses should pay close attention to:

Whether a policy is a formal rule or informal guidance.
Whether the agency followed notice-and-comment procedures.
Which statute the regulator relies on for authority.
Pending lawsuits challenging the measure.
Changes in agency leadership and enforcement priorities.
Potential legislation affecting digital-asset oversight.

Maintaining a compliance strategy that can adapt to changing interpretations is especially important. Firms may also benefit from documenting how regulatory decisions affect their operations, since evidence of reliance could become relevant if a rule is later challenged or withdrawn.

A Durable Shift or a Temporary Political Victory?

The SEC and CFTC’s recent pro-crypto actions may represent a meaningful shift in the United States’ approach to digital assets. Yet their long-term durability will depend on more than political support. Formal rules backed by detailed records, clear statutory authority, and careful procedures are more likely to withstand reversal than informal policies or agency interpretations with weak legal foundations.

Ultimately, the “anti-crypto army” cannot necessarily overturn every pro-crypto measure easily. But neither can the industry assume that recent regulatory progress is irreversible. Court challenges, congressional action, leadership changes, and future rulemaking could all reshape the landscape. For now, the most realistic expectation is continued legal and political uncertainty, with the strongest protections belonging to policies that are transparent, procedurally sound, and firmly grounded in existing law.