The United States still lacks a unified legislative framework for regulating digital assets, and an opinion piece by former New York Gov. Andrew M. Cuomo argues the policy uncertainty is weighing on builders, investors, and everyday consumers. Cuomo points to the proposed CLARITY Act—passed by the House in 2025 but not sent to the president—as an effort to clarify how agencies such as the SEC and CFTC would oversee the market.
With Congress failing to move the bill forward, Cuomo says federal agencies have instead advanced new rules using existing authority. He characterizes this approach as potentially helpful in the short run, but ultimately vulnerable because it does not carry the durability of a law enacted through Congress.
Key takeaways
- The CLARITY Act, aimed at creating a national regulatory framework for digital assets, passed the House in 2025 but has not advanced to the president.
- Cuomo argues agency-driven rulemaking is less durable than congressional legislation because it can be reversed or politically constrained.
- He warns that the next congressional shift could significantly affect how crypto regulations are implemented or challenged.
- Cuomo urges bipartisan digital-asset legislation to reduce ambiguity and let companies invest with greater regulatory certainty.
- He cites regulatory frameworks abroad—such as Europe’s MiCA and Singapore’s Payment Services Act—as examples of jurisdictions moving toward clearer rules.
Why the CLARITY Act became a focal point
Cuomo frames the core problem as a mismatch between fast-moving technology and a regulatory process that remains incomplete at the federal level. In his view, the CLARITY Act was designed to address that gap by establishing clearer national rules for digital assets and by defining the respective roles of the SEC and CFTC.
He notes that the House passed the bill in 2025, but that Congress has not yet delivered legislation to the president. Earlier coverage cited in the piece points to the Senate failing to advance the act in September, leaving uncertainty over what happens next.
For market participants, that legislative pause matters because it leaves questions about enforcement and market structure open-ended—issues that can influence whether firms choose to build products in the US, hire locally, and raise capital based on a stable legal baseline.
Agency rulemaking fills the gap—but brings political risk
With Congress stalled, Cuomo argues the SEC and CFTC have moved quickly to reshape crypto regulation through new rules. In the article, this is described as an attempt to restructure the market in the absence of a congressional market structure law, including a proposed federal framework for crypto trading platforms and a more tailored regulatory regime for certain crypto assets.
While Cuomo acknowledges that these regulatory steps could create near-term opportunities, he stresses that they rest on agencies’ existing statutory authority rather than on a new law. That distinction, he argues, affects durability and creates political vulnerability—especially if Congress is opposed to the rules or seeks to constrain agency action.
From an investor and operator standpoint, the risk he highlights is not simply regulatory change, but the possibility that the rules could be altered, repealed, or effectively destabilized due to shifting political priorities after elections.
How elections could reshape crypto regulation
Cuomo’s central warning is that the regulatory environment for digital assets may be particularly sensitive to political control in Washington. He points to prediction markets and electoral trends as suggesting Democrats could secure control of one or both houses after the midterms, and he argues that Congress’s ability to derail agency actions should not be underestimated.
He draws on his own experience during the 1994 midterms, when Republicans took control of both chambers. Cuomo describes how oversight intensified, funding became leverage, and congressional tools were used to challenge and constrain executive branch agencies. His point is that crypto policy, driven in part by administrative rulemaking, could face similar scrutiny if political dynamics change.
He also outlines several congressional mechanisms that could affect agency regulations, including the requirement that agencies submit rules before they take effect, potential limits on funding, legislation overriding agency actions, and the Congressional Review Act used to repeal regulations. He further notes that investigations and hearings—paired with subpoenas—can add operational uncertainty for regulated industries.
In practical terms, this means compliance planning may become a moving target if major regulatory decisions are perceived as tied to a particular political moment rather than anchored in durable, bipartisan legislation.
What the US can learn from other frameworks
Cuomo argues that the United States should align technological innovation with regulatory oversight that is consistent and intelligible. When the legislative path stalls, he says, ambiguity persists—creating problems for business decision-making, investor confidence, and consumer protection.
To him, a stable regulatory regime should make it clear what is legal, what is prohibited, who regulates specific activities, and how enforcement will be carried out. He emphasizes that companies should not have to base long-term investments on which party controls Congress or the executive branch.
He contrasts the US situation with other jurisdictions that have moved toward clearer standards. In the article, he references Europe’s Markets in Crypto Assets (MiCA) regulation and Singapore’s Payment Services Act as examples of frameworks that provide regulatory certainty and set expectations for the market.
Cuomo concludes that passing bipartisan authorization for digital asset activities should be a top priority for the next Congress—an effort intended to reduce uncertainty and allow firms to invest safely and rationally in the United States while also addressing consumer protection and market integrity concerns.
Looking ahead
The immediate question is whether Congress will revive the CLARITY Act or pursue alternative bipartisan legislation before election-driven political shifts alter the trajectory of existing agency rules. For market participants, the key variable to watch is not only what regulators announce, but whether Congress treats those rules as settled policy or as something that can be reopened.
Be the first to comment