One year into the Trump administration, changes in the U.S. crypto industry

# This report was prepared by Tiger Research

In 2025, the U.S. government is implementing a crypto - supportive policy with a concise and clear goal: to regulate the existing cryptocurrency industry to operate in the same manner as the traditional financial sector.

## Key Takeaways

1. The U.S. is committed to integrating cryptocurrencies into its existing financial infrastructure, rather than simply absorbing the entire industry.

2. Over the past year, Congress, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) have gradually incorporated cryptocurrencies into this system by introducing and adjusting rules.

3. Despite tensions among regulators, the U.S. is refining its regulatory framework while supporting the growth of the industry.

### 1. The U.S. Integration of the Cryptocurrency Industry

Following President Trump’s re - election, the government has rolled out a series of aggressive pro - crypto policies. This marks a sharp departure from its previous stance, under which the cryptocurrency industry was mainly regarded as an object of regulation and control. The U.S. has entered an once - unimaginable phase, moving at a near - unilateral pace to absorb the cryptocurrency industry into its existing system.

The shifting positions of the SEC and CFTC, coupled with traditional financial institutions’ foray into crypto - related businesses, all indicate that extensive structural changes are taking place.

Notably, all of this has transpired merely one year after President Trump’s re - election. To date, what specific changes have occurred in the U.S. regulatory and policy landscape?

### 2. A Year of Transformation in the U.S. Stance on Cryptocurrencies

2025 has ushered in a pivotal turning point for U.S. cryptocurrency policy with the inauguration of the Trump administration. The executive branch, Congress, and regulatory agencies have acted in concert, with a core focus on reducing market uncertainty and integrating cryptocurrencies into the existing financial infrastructure.

#### 2.1 U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)

In the past, the SEC primarily relied on enforcement actions to address cryptocurrency - related activities. In high - profile cases involving Ripple, Coinbase, Binance, and Kraken’s staking services, the SEC initiated lawsuits without providing clear standards on the legal classification of tokens or permissible activities, often basing its enforcement on ex post facto interpretations. This forced cryptocurrency companies to divert more resources toward managing regulatory risks rather than expanding their businesses.

This stance began to shift after Gary Gensler, the SEC chair who held a conservative view on the cryptocurrency industry, resigned. Under the leadership of Paul Atkins, the SEC has adopted a more open approach, embarking on the development of foundational rules aimed at bringing the cryptocurrency industry within the regulatory framework, instead of relying solely on litigation for oversight.

A key example is the announcement of the "Crypto Project". Through this initiative, the SEC has signaled its intention to establish clear criteria for determining which tokens qualify as securities and which do not. Once a regulator with an ambiguous direction, the SEC is now reshaping itself into a more inclusive institution.

#### 2.2 U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)

**Source**: Tiger Research

Historically, the CFTC’s involvement in cryptocurrencies was largely confined to the regulation of derivatives markets. However, this year, it has taken a more proactive stance by formally recognizing Bitcoin and Ethereum as commodities and supporting their use by traditional institutions.

The **Digital Asset Collateral Pilot Program** represents a crucial initiative. Under this program, Bitcoin, Ethereum, and USDC have been approved as collateral for derivatives trading. The CFTC has applied haircuts and risk management standards, treating these assets in the same manner as traditional collateral.

This shift demonstrates that the CFTC no longer views crypto assets purely as speculative instruments but has started to recognize them as stable collateral assets on par with traditional financial assets.

#### 2.3 Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)

**Source**: Tiger Research

In the past, the OCC maintained a distance from the cryptocurrency industry. Cryptocurrency companies were required to obtain licenses on a state - by - state basis, facing barriers to entry into the federal banking regulatory system. Their business expansion was restricted, and structural impediments hindered their connection to the traditional financial system, forcing most of them to operate outside the regulated framework.

Today, this approach has been completely overhauled. Instead of excluding cryptocurrency firms from the financial system, the OCC has opted to integrate them into the existing banking regulatory framework. It has issued a series of interpretive letters (formal documents clarifying the permissibility of specific financial activities), gradually expanding the scope of allowed businesses, including crypto asset custody, trading, and even transaction fee processing on bank payment chains.

These reforms culminated in December, when the OCC conditionally granted national trust bank charters to major players such as Circle and Ripple. This move is of profound significance, as it grants these crypto companies equal status to traditional financial institutions. Subject to a single federal regulatory regime, they can now operate nationwide and process transfers directly, just like traditional banks, eliminating the need for intermediate banks.

#### 2.4 Legislation and Executive Orders

**Source**: Tiger Research

Although the U.S. has been deliberating stablecoin legislation since 2022, repeated delays have created a regulatory vacuum in the market. Clear standards were lacking in areas such as reserve composition, regulatory authority, and issuance requirements. Investors were unable to reliably verify whether issuers held sufficient reserves, sparking concerns about the transparency of reserves held by some issuers.

The **GENIUS Act** has addressed these issues by clearly defining stablecoin issuance requirements and reserve standards. It mandates that issuers hold reserves equivalent to 100% of the issued amount, prohibits the rehypothecation of reserve assets, and centralizes regulatory authority under federal financial regulators.

With this, stablecoins have evolved into legally recognized digital dollars backed by statutory payment capabilities.

### 3. Direction Established, Competition and Checks - and - Balances Coexist

Over the past year, the direction of U.S. cryptocurrency policy has been crystal clear: to integrate the cryptocurrency industry into the formal financial system. However, this process has not been uniform or frictionless.

Divergent views persist within the U.S. A prime example is the debate surrounding the privacy - focused mixing service Tornado Cash: the executive branch has actively enforced regulations on the grounds of blocking illegal capital flows, while the SEC chair has publicly warned against over - suppressing privacy features. This indicates that there is no complete consensus within the U.S. government regarding cryptocurrencies.

Yet these differences do not equate to policy instability; rather, they are inherent characteristics of the U.S. decision - making system. Institutions with distinct responsibilities interpret issues from their own perspectives, occasionally expressing dissenting views publicly, and progress is made through mutual checks - and - balances and persuasion. The tension between strict enforcement and innovation protection may lead to short - term frictions, but in the long run, it helps to make regulatory standards increasingly specific and precise.

The key point is that this tension has not impeded progress. Even amid debates, the U.S. has been advancing on multiple fronts simultaneously: rule - making by the SEC, infrastructure integration by the CFTC, institutional absorption by the OCC, and the establishment of standards through congressional legislation. It does not wait for full consensus but instead allows competition and coordination to proceed in tandem, driving the continuous evolution of the system.

Ultimately, the U.S. has neither completely let the cryptocurrency industry run wild nor attempted to suppress its development. Instead, it has reshaped regulation, leadership, and market infrastructure in parallel. By transforming internal debates and tensions into driving forces, the U.S. has chosen a strategy to position itself as the global hub of the cryptocurrency industry.

The past year has been pivotal precisely because this direction has transcended mere declarations and been effectively translated into concrete policies and enforcement actions.

### Disclaimer

The views expressed in this article are solely those of the author and do not constitute investment advice on this platform. This platform makes no guarantees regarding the accuracy, completeness, originality, or timeliness of the information in the article, nor shall it be liable for any losses arising from the use of or reliance on the information contained herein.