SEC Scrutinizes Crypto Regulations Following Trump Deregulation Order
– Acting Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) Chair Mark Uyeda has directed staff to review a series of regulatory statements pertaining to digital assets, a move prompted by President Trump’s recent executive order aimed at reducing regulatory burdens.
The review, announced in a statement posted on the SEC’s X account, will encompass guidance on the investment contract analysis of digital assets, the treatment of Bitcoin futures under the Investment Company Act, crypto market disclosure letters, digital asset securities oversight, and custody standards related to a no-action letter issued in Wyoming.
According to the statement, the action is being taken pursuant to Executive Order 14192, titled “Unleashing Prosperity Through Deregulation,” and with recommendations from the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). President Trump issued the order on , with the stated goal of reducing what the administration views as unnecessary regulations hindering economic growth and innovation.
The executive order establishes a “10-for-1” mandate, requiring federal agencies to eliminate ten existing rules for every new one proposed. This represents a significant increase from the “2-for-1” policy implemented during Trump’s first term.
The SEC staff’s review could potentially lead to simplified or clarified rules for companies operating in the cryptocurrency space, or even reduced oversight, depending on the outcome of the assessment. The potential for change comes as the SEC has already been actively involved in enforcing regulations within the crypto markets.
The SEC has brought over 100 crypto-related enforcement actions in the last decade, addressing unlawful activity across various crypto markets, according to a speech delivered by Grewal.
The review of existing statements comes after a no-action position was taken that Crenshaw criticized, stating it “lacks factual support in key areas and provides scant legal justification for poking holes in core statutory protections.” Crenshaw further stated that the only justification for the relief appeared to be a claim that no other entities were available to custody crypto assets in compliance with existing rules.
