The 2025 U.S. presidential transition has triggered one of the most consequential resets in the country’s approach to crypto regulation. After years of legal ambiguity, overlapping enforcement, and adversarial messaging from regulators, the new administration under President Donald J. Trump is taking a markedly different stance – one that positions blockchain innovation as a national strategic priority.

Within months of taking office, the Trump administration has issued executive orders promoting crypto, advanced bipartisan legislation, and appointed a new SEC Chair committed to ending “regulation by enforcement.” These early signals point to a more constructive – but still cautious – regulatory environment. In parallel, Congress passed the GENIUS Act, establishing the first federal framework for stablecoins, while new bills seek to rebalance oversight between the SEC and the CFTC.

This article explores what’s changed, what hasn’t, and what it all means for crypto projects navigating the U.S. market in 2025 – from enforcement strategy and staking regulation to token classification, market access, and risk exposure.

A New Political Era: How Trump’s Administration is Reframing U.S. Crypto Policy

The political landscape changed dramatically in January 2025 when President Donald Trump took office, following a campaign that openly embraced virtual asset innovation. Trump had promised to become the “crypto president” and made reversing the enforcement-heavy policies of the prior administration a top priority.

Just three days into his term, President Trump issued a landmark executive order titled “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology”. The order repealed President Biden’s more cautious 2022 directive and reoriented federal policy toward fostering blockchain innovation. It called for the lawful promotion of public blockchain use, the encouragement of dollar-backed stablecoins to reinforce the sovereignty of the U.S. dollar, and the creation of fair access to banking services for crypto companies. Importantly, the order also explicitly prohibited the development of a central bank digital currency (CBDC), distinguishing the administration’s position from that of several other major economies.

The executive order established the President’s Working Group on Digital Assets, a cross-agency task force mandated to audit all existing crypto-related regulations within an accelerated timeline.

In tone and substance, this executive action represents a decisive break from the previous administration, which had often viewed the industry with skepticism. For the Trump administration, crypto is now couched not just as a financial experiment, but as a matter of national competitiveness and financial sovereignty.

Congressional Action: The GENIUS Act and the Rise of Federal Crypto Law

After years of stagnation, Congress in 2025 appears poised to finally deliver on the promise of coherent digital asset legislation. With cover and encouragement from the White House, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have accelerated efforts to address the longstanding regulatory void surrounding digital assets.

In July 2025, President Donald J. Trump signed the Guiding Emissions Neutrality, Innovation, and Ubiquitous Stablecoins (GENIUS) Act into law, establishing the United States’ first comprehensive federal framework for stablecoins. The GENIUS Act requires stablecoin issuers to:

• Maintain fully backed reserves in fiat or high-quality liquid assets;
• Disclose monthly reserve attestations audited by third parties;
• Comply with strict marketing rules to protect consumers from deceptive practices;
• Adhere to anti-money-laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) obligations;
• Prioritise customer redemption rights in bankruptcy proceedings.

By aligning stablecoin oversight with key principles of consumer protection, transparency, and monetary stability, the GENIUS Act aims to integrate blockchain-based instruments into the traditional financial system without compromising the dollar’s international dominance or the innovation potential of digital assets.

At the same time, broader efforts to regulate digital assets continue to gain traction. Just weeks earlier, the House introduced the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act, a broader proposal to restructure the regulatory division of labor between the SEC and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Under the bill, the CFTC would take the lead in overseeing spot and cash markets for “digital commodities” – a category that includes most utility and native tokens – while the SEC would focus on token issuances and investment contracts. The legislation also introduces the concept of “investment contract assets”, allowing tokens that initially qualify as securities to eventually transition out of SEC jurisdiction once they achieve network decentralisation or functional maturity.

A particularly groundbreaking provision addresses decentralised finance (DeFi). The bill defines DeFi as peer-to-peer blockchain-based protocols and makes clear that simply contributing to DeFi, such as by writing code, validating transactions, or providing liquidity, does not by itself trigger regulatory obligations, unless there is evidence of fraud or centralised control. This clarification offers long-sought safe harbor for open-source developers and network participants.

The passage and enactment of the GENIUS Act marks a turning point. Political alignment across the executive and legislative branches has overcome the years-long paralysis caused by partisan conflict and agency turf wars. While the Digital Asset Market Clarity Act and other proposals are still in legislative flux, the GENIUS Act’s enactment signals a decisive shift – from regulating digital assets through enforcement actions to building a durable, transparent regulatory framework through rulemaking.

The U.S. is now taking concrete steps toward becoming a leader in digital asset policy, offering both legal clarity and a foundation for continued innovation.

The SEC Repositioned: From Enforcement to Engagement

Few agencies have had a more fraught relationship with the crypto industry than the SEC. Under former Chair Gary Gensler, who served from 2021 to January 2025, the SEC declared that most crypto tokens were unregistered securities and initiated a series of headline-grabbing lawsuits against major exchanges and issuers. The period saw the collapse of major players like Terra, Celsius, and FTX, and was characterised by widespread regulatory uncertainty.

Gensler’s resignation in January 2025 paved the way for a dramatic leadership change. In April, President Trump appointed Paul S. Atkins as SEC Chair. A former Commissioner with a reputation for opposing regulatory overreach, Atkins has wasted no time in signalling a new approach. At the SEC Speaks 2025 conference, Atkins declared his intention to move away from “regulation by enforcement” and instead build a rational, rule-based framework tailored to the realities of crypto markets.

Atkins also reactivated the agency’s Crypto Task Force. Its mission is to reevaluate how the SEC applies securities laws to virtual assets and to create realistic registration pathways for firms acting in good faith. The Task Force has already initiated internal reviews of previous enforcement actions, compliance burdens, and no-action letter policies.

Enforcement Retreat: High-Profile Cases Dropped or Softened

In one of the most tangible signs of change, the SEC has withdrawn or settled several high-profile cases that once defined its hardline approach.

In February 2025, the SEC dismissed its lawsuit against Coinbase, which had been accused of operating an unregistered exchange. The resolution was widely seen as a victory for the industry, as Coinbase had argued that compliance with the SEC’s previous demands would have forced the delisting of many tokens and undermined its core business model.

In May, the SEC dropped its civil case against Binance and its founder Changpeng Zhao. Although no formal reason was given, the move appears to be part of a broader strategic shift, favouring negotiated outcomes and prioritising fraud over technical violations.

The long-running legal battle with Ripple also reached an unexpected conclusion. Though a 2023 court ruling had found that XRP sales to institutional investors violated securities laws, the SEC opted to settle rather than pursue further litigation. Ripple agreed to pay a reduced penalty of $50 million – down from more than $100 million originally sought.

Regulatory Clarity for Staking

Adding further clarity, the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance released a statement in May 2025 outlining its stance on staking activities within proof-of-stake (PoS) networks. According to the new guidance, the act of protocol staking – whether solo, delegated, or custodial – does not constitute a securities offering, provided ownership of the staked assets remains with the user.

The statement also addressed ancillary services associated with staking, such as slashing insurance or reward redistribution mechanisms. These services, the SEC affirmed, do not transform staking into a securities transaction as long as they are transparently offered and optional. This long-awaited clarification removes a significant regulatory cloud and offers PoS networks, validators, and staking-as-a-service providers much-needed legal certainty.

In early August 2025, the SEC clarified that liquid staking activities and their associated tokens – known as staking receipt tokens – are not considered securities, as long as providers merely facilitate staking in an administrative capacity without engaging in entrepreneurial or managerial efforts that generate profit. This means users and projects involved in liquid staking generally do not need to register these transactions as securities offerings.

Regulatory Reality: Five Strategic Considerations for U.S. Crypto Market Access

The developments of 2025 clearly mark a shift in U.S. regulatory posture toward digital assets. With the GENIUS Act now signed into law and the SEC demonstrating a retreat from aggressive enforcement, the tone from Washington is more cooperative and forward-looking than it has been in years. But for Web3 teams and crypto projects, particularly those evaluating whether to include or exclude the U.S. users, key questions remain unresolved.

Clarity is Improving, But Old Precedents Still Apply

Legal clarity is improving, but not yet complete. While some see these signals as “green lights” to re-engage the U.S. market, especially for use cases lacking characteristics of securities or investment contracts like protocol staking, others may find such optimism premature.

While the change in administration and the SEC’s softened tone are significant, they have not yet altered the foundation of U.S. judicial precedent. Courts continue to apply prior interpretations of securities law, the Howey test, and related doctrines as they have in recent years. This means that until such precedent is reshaped – either through statutory reform or through new, landmark case decisions – the underlying legal risks remain largely intact.

Enforcement Risk Goes Beyond the SEC

The risks extend beyond direct SEC enforcement. Private plaintiffs and class-action litigators can and do bring securities-related claims under existing precedent, often targeting token issuers, platforms, and service providers for alleged violations.

Similarly, commodities and derivatives regulation remains a significant compliance frontier: the CFTC has not materially shifted its position on what constitutes a commodity, a derivatives contract, or a swaps activity in the digital asset space. For many projects this is as material as securities law exposure.

Some Projects Are Reentering – Others Remain Cautious

In 2025, amid a more favorable regulatory shift in the U.S., several major crypto projects began reassessing their exclusion of U.S. users. Companies that had previously geofenced or blocked U.S. access due to legal uncertainty are now cautiously re-engaging with the market – often through regulated subsidiaries or tailored platforms. Notable examples include OKX, which launched a licensed U.S. entity (OKCoin USA Inc.). Crypto.com, eToro, and Deribit, all of which are expanding U.S. operations with a compliance-first approach. Binance, which initially blocked U.S. users from its global platform, continues to serve the U.S. market through a separate regulated entity that operates the Binance.US platform.

These cases reflect a growing industry trend: as legal clarity improves, re-entry into the U.S. becomes a viable option, provided projects have compliant infrastructure, carefully designed functionality, and a clear understanding of regulatory risks.

U.S. User Access Requires a Case-by-Case Legal Strategy

Ultimately, the decision to include or exclude U.S. users should be grounded in a comprehensive, case-by-case legal risk assessment. Key factors in this evaluation include the protocol’s architecture and degree of decentralisation, the functional utility of the token, and the extent of exposure to custodial or financial activities.

Critically, in the absence of settled case law or finalized, coordinated guidance from U.S. regulatory agencies, a broad or public endorsement of U.S. market entry remains premature from a legal risk standpoint. Accordingly, projects with a low risk tolerance are generally better served by continuing to exclude U.S. users – particularly from activities that could be construed as securities offerings or regulated financial services – until clearer judicial or regulatory precedent emerges.

Conversely, if your project maintains a moderate risk appetite and offers a well-structured product that lacks the hallmarks of a security, investment contract, or financial instrument – such as a non-custodial infrastructure protocol or a utility token with narrowly defined functionality – then limited, jurisdiction-specific access to U.S. users may be considered.

Cautious Optimism, Not a Legal Green Light

In short, the trajectory is positive – but prudence remains warranted. For now, most projects should combine close legal monitoring with jurisdictional flexibility.

In practical terms, the softened regulatory rhetoric should not be mistaken for an immediate legal shield. The gap between policy tone and enforceable, codified change is where the greatest uncertainty lies. Until statutory or precedential shifts occur, litigation risk – whether from regulators, private actors, or coordinated enforcement – remains a factor that prudent teams must continue to weigh. As the U.S. moves from rhetoric to implementation, the true scope of regulatory safety will become clearer.