With the levers of power in Washington, D.C., about to change hands, a raft of pro-crypto legislation is expected from Congress and the Trump administration. To date, there’s been less focus on the cybersecurity side of the political effort, which could be an issue for crypto in relation to its popularity among a wary U.S. population. 

Cryptocurrency, which includes not just bitcoin but ethereum, dogecoin, and others, has a faithful following among American adults. According to the Pew Research Center, 17% of American adults have traded in crypto, but that market share of American wallets has remained virtually unchanged since 2021. Meanwhile, according to a poll Pew conducted shortly before the election, 63% of adults say they have little to no confidence in crypto investing or trading, and don’t think cryptocurrencies are reliable and safe. 

The incoming Trump administration has been touting its crypto bona fides, with a focus on the industry rather than the consumer.

“The No. 1 most important priority for the industry is to make sure they have a regulatory framework so that they can do business,” said Dusty Johnson (R-South Dakota), who helped author the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century Act (FIT21) that addresses the treatment of digital assets under U.S. law. The law passed in the House with bipartisan support but has not been taken up by the Senate.

FIT21 did contain specific crypto-cybersecurity provisions, which Johnson predicts will be built upon in the new administration.

Glenn “GT” Thompson (R-Pennsylvania), Chairman of the House Committee on Agriculture and a co-author of FIT21, says the cybersecurity provisions in the bill are still key in the upcoming administration.

“FIT21 requires important cybersecurity safeguards for financial intermediaries engaging with digital assets,” Thompson said in a statement to CNBC, adding that FIT21 includes explicit provisions to ensure that regulated firms take steps to evaluate and mitigate cyber vulnerabilities to protect both the services they offer and assets they hold on behalf of their customers.

“These cybersecurity requirements are critical for protecting digital asset markets and market participants,” Thompson said.

Some experts, however, doubt that there will be as much action on the security side of the legislation, given that crypto proponents are closely advising the Trump administration.

“Personnel is policy,” says Jeff Le, vice president of global government affairs and public policy at Security Scorecard and a former assistant cabinet secretary in the California governor’s office. The top ranks of the incoming economic team, made up of SEC Chair-designate Paul Atkins, Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, and Treasury Secretary-designate Scott Bessent, “have had a track record of supporting cryptocurrencies,” Le said.

Among other major posts in his second administration, President-elect Trump has appointed venture capital investor David Sacks to be his AI and crypto “czar.”

Crypto industry’s role in political realignment

The crypto industry donated significant sums to the 2024 election cycle, contributions that were not limited to the GOP, but focused more broadly on lawmakers with an industry-friendly view of crypto regulation. It’s likely that will continue to influence political calculations. The pro-crypto and bipartisan super PAC Fairshake and its affiliates have already raised over $100 million for the 2026 midterm elections, including commitments from Coinbase and Silicon Valley venture fund Andreessen Horowitz, an early backer of Coinbase. Top Andreessen Horowitz executives have been tapped for roles in the Trump administration.

“We have the most pro-crypto Congress ever [in] history, we have an extraordinarily pro-crypto president coming into office,” Faryar Shirzad, chief policy officer at Coinbase, recently told CNBC.

“It is rare to see cryptocurrency proponents advocate for increased regulation in the space, regardless of reason,” said Jason Baker, senior threat intelligence consultant at GuidePoint Security.

Baker says the anonymity and independence of cryptocurrency are often cited as primary benefits that legislation would curtail, and cryptocurrency’s decentralized nature makes it hard to regulate in a traditional sense.

“Given current signaling from the incoming administration and the interests of cryptocurrency proponents influential to the administration, we do not anticipate significant advances in cryptocurrency regulation within the next four years,” Baker said.

If there isn’t much action on regulation, there are some obvious ramifications for cybersecurity, he said, driven by the correlation between a pro-crypto Washington, D.C., and bullish bets by investors on digital assets.

“Cybercrime is often driven by benefits from increasing cryptocurrency value. In ransomware, for example, ransoms are commonly demanded in USD, but payments are made most frequently in bitcoin. When the value of bitcoin increases, cybercriminals will benefit,” Baker said.

“Future de-emphasis on cryptocurrency regulation may positively signal that cybercrime operations in bitcoin remain viable and unlikely to suffer government disruption to operators in the space,” Baker said.

Cybercriminals have also been changing tactics to evade legislation and scrutiny, Baker added, switching to more under-the-radar cryptocurrencies like Monero.

Ransomware’s potential role in Congressional action

Baker predicts regulation centered on organizations issuing cryptocurrency payments — whether in the form of a ransom payment or for other purposes — is more likely achievable and palatable in the current regulatory environment.

“This could include, for example, increased requirements for reporting ransom payments when made, a policy which has been floated without gaining substantial traction in recent years,” Baker said. This approach can be argued as regulating end users and purposes rather than the underlying cryptocurrency itself.

In addition to ransomware payments to restore access to technology systems, there are other reasons why payment in cryptocurrency is common in digital extortion schemes, including to protect the identity and operational security of the criminal. Private organizations may also opt to use crypto to purchase leaked data or credentials which have been made available on illicit forums.

There could also be situations where private individuals attempt to report and receive payment for discovered vulnerabilities under a “bug bounty” program — whether voluntary or coerced (so-called “beg bounty”). They may request payment in cryptocurrency out of personal preference or general desire for privacy, and private organizations may or may not oblige.

“While there are doubtless other options for organizations to use cryptocurrency in some form, these are the primary forms we see on a regular or more frequent basis,” Baker said. “Though such actions would almost certainly have downstream impacts on cryptocurrency value by virtue of their impact on transaction volume,” Baker added.

Steve McNew, global leader of blockchain and digital assets at FTI Consulting, thinks some cyber-crypto legislation may happen, especially governing when a company victimized by a ransomware pays their attackers in cryptocurrency.

“There’s more than just public policy at issue,” said McNew. If a company has been compromised in a cyberattack and is required to make public disclosure of the ransoms it paid out, it can result in the company becoming a bigger future target for other criminal enterprises, McNew said. While it might make sense, on one hand, to provide disclosure as to where funds are going and what cryptocurrencies were used in a payment, doing so can put the company (and by extension its customers, employees and partners) in harm’s way.

“So, any policy decisions around cryptocurrency disclosures in this context will require balancing the need for transparency around the use of cryptocurrency in criminal matters alongside the risks such transparency might exacerbate,” McNew says.

Though FIT21 passed the House with broad bipartisan support, it did not address these issues specifically.

Le expects some legislation action that may attempt to address this topic. “The next Congress could see more traction for proposed legislation like Cryptocurrency Cybersecurity Information Sharing Act of 2022, which allows companies to share information regarding cybersecurity threats with the federal government and with one another,” he said.

Le said Congress may also revisit the work of outgoing Financial Services Chair Patrick McHenry (R-North Carolina) and Rep. Brittany Pettersen (D-Colorado) and the Ransomware and Financial Stability Act of 2024, which aimed at “strengthening the resilience of the U.S. financial system against ransomware attacks, establishing clear protocols for ransom payments, and ensuring that such payments, including those involving cryptocurrencies, are made within a controlled and legally compliant framework.”

But he added that it is unclear if the Trump administration will continue the Biden administration’s leadership role in the International Counter Ransomware Initiative, a 68-country coalition aimed at preventing the payments of ransomware.

The broader bitcoin governance battle

McNew says that many basic parameters surrounding crypto, even down to its definition, could hamstring legislation, even aspects of it intended to foster innovation and adoption of the industry.

“U.S. lawmakers have work to do in determining roles, responsibilities, and basic parameters for how the industry will be governed before any meaningful legislation can take hold,” McNew said. As an example,  establishing a designated authority for digital assets is an imperative that has yet to be addressed.

Basic governance structure was a major sticking point during the Biden administration, and a primary reason Securities and Exchange Commission Chair Gary Gensler was a thorn in the side of the crypto industry.

“Lawmakers must decide whether responsibility will fall under the SEC, the CFTC, or another body. Issues around taxation and broker-dealer definitions for digital assets markets will also need to be defined and provided with a set of clear rules for legislation to be effective,” McNew said, adding that given how closely divided the House will be in the next session, it may be tough to craft an agreement. 

Before Jack Nader started posting beauty videos on TikTok in 2023, he was working as a Starbucks barista in Chicago and living at home with his parents. 

But after Nader, who’s now 21, started taking his videos seriously in April of that year, his TikTok account blew up. With more than half a million followers, he was able to generate enough income through brand sponsorships and his share of ad revenue that he quit his coffee shop gig and got his own apartment. 

“This is my 9-to-5 job,” Nader, who said he makes between $1,000 and $12,000 per month as a creator, told CNBC. “This is what I do to make a living. This is how I pay for my groceries. This is how millions of small businesses make their money.”

Nader’s new reality, however, is far from stable. TikTok, which is owned by China’s ByteDance, is nearing a Jan. 19 deadline by which it has to be sold, or it faces a ban in the U.S. Like many other creators who have come to rely on TikTok, Nader has been urging his fans to find him on other social media apps before he potentially loses them altogether and the substantial income stream that they represent.

“Not everyone from my TikTok following is going to come over, and that’s really sad,” Nader said. 

The TikTok risk has been present for years, but was amped up in April, after President Joe Biden signed a law that requires ByteDance to divest the short-form video app this month. If ByteDance fails to sell TikTok in time, Apple and Google will be forced by law to ensure their platforms no longer support the app in the U.S.

President-elect Donald Trump, who favored a TikTok ban during his first administration, has since flip-flopped on the matter. Late last month, he urged the Supreme Court to intervene and forcibly delay implementation of Biden’s ban to give him time to find a “political resolution.” His inauguration is Jan. 20.

Trump’s rhetoric on TikTok began to turn after he met in February with billionaire Jeff Yass, a Republican megadonor and a major investor in ByteDance who also owns a stake in the owner of Truth Social, Trump’s social media company.

The Supreme Court heard oral arguments from both sides on Jan. 10. During the more than two-hour session, justices peppered TikTok’s head lawyer with questions about the app’s ties to China and appeared generally unconvinced by TikTok’s main argument, that the law violates the free speech rights of its millions of individual users in the U.S.

On Thursday, businessman Frank McCourt’s internet advocacy group Project Liberty announced it had submitted a proposal to buy TikTok from ByteDance. Calling it, “The People’s Bid for TikTok,” the group said it would restructure the app to exist on an American-owned platform and prioritize users’ digital safety, though it didn’t disclose terms of its bid.

A ruling could come at an point. Nader isn’t waiting for a resolution to figure out what’s next.

He’s currently downloading four or five of his TikTok videos each day to save them as he migrates his content to Meta’s Instagram Reels and Alphabet’s YouTube Shorts. After downloading the videos, Nader re-edits them, optimizing the clips for each app. 

“It took me over a year and a half to build the following that I have right now on TikTok to make it my full time job,” Nader said. “Now it’s kind of about rebuilding that entire brand on another platform, which is not ideal.”

Nader said he isn’t yet making any money from Reels or Shorts.

Carter, who previously worked in luxury retail, has ended her TikTok videos by telling her followers that they can find her on YouTube, Instagram and Patreon. 

“This isn’t just a silly app that people have been using to post dance videos,” said Carter, who makes about $4,000 per month on average from her TikTok activity. “It’s been remarkable in terms of changing people’s lives, changing people’s businesses.”

TikTok could still find a way to stay operational in the U.S., but if the app does get suspended, YouTube, Facebook and Instagram are poised to be the biggest winners in the fallout, experts predict.

TikTok has about 115 million monthly active users in the U.S., well behind YouTube at 258 million and Facebook at 253 million, according to market intelligence firm Sensor Tower. Instagram has 131 million. Short videos, the kind that mimic clips on TikTok, are gaining viewership across those apps, accounting for about 41% of user time on Instagram, Sensor Tower data shows.

While TikTok has a smaller userbase in the U.S. and lower share of total ad dollars than its top rivals, it’s the dominant platform for creators, particularly those focused on short-form content.

Influencer marketing platform HyperAuditor defines a creator as a user with over 1,000 subscribers. TikTok has nearly 8.5 million people in the U.S. who fit that category, compared with about 5.2 million on Instagram and 1.1 million on YouTube, according to HyperAuditor.

Meanwhile, TikTok accounts for 9% of digital ad spend on social media platforms in the U.S., according to Sensor Tower, compared to 31% for Facebook, 25% for Instagram and 21% for YouTube.

Should TikTok go away, “this equates to billions of dollars potentially up in the air for competitors to seize,” Sensor Tower told CNBC in an email. Emarketer estimates that Meta and YouTube could grab about half of the reallocated dollars should a ban go into effect.

That type of market shift has taken place elsewhere. India banned TikTok in June 2020, when the app had about 150 million monthly users in the country. A year later, Instagram’s monthly active users in India had increased by 20% while YouTube’s had gone up 11% year-over-year, according to Sensor Tower estimates. 

“That’s when we saw the biggest jump in Reels utilization ever,” said Meghana Dhar, a former Instagram executive who was at the company at the time of the India ban. “Should TikTok get banned and creators have to scramble, between YouTube Shorts and Instagram, a lot of creators are already hedging their bets.”

At Meta, leaders within Instagram scheduled numerous impromptu meetings on Friday after listening to the oral arguments before the Supreme Court, a person familiar with the matter told CNBC. Though many within the company had long expected TikTok would remain active in the U.S., leaders at Instagram began directing their teams to prepare for a potential influx of users should the ban go through, said the person, who asked not to be named due to confidentiality.

Some creators will suggest followers find them on “fbook,” for example, rather than writing out Facebook. Others will bleep out just enough words to get the message to their followers while hoping to avoid TikTok’s detection, Nolan said. Some creators are teaming up with brands to incentivize users by holding prize giveaways for users who follow them on other apps, she added. 

“They’re obviously not saying, ‘Come over to Instagram,'” Nolan said. “They’re like, ‘Go follow me on’ and they’re mouthing it.”

Even with multiple other options for finding large audiences, creators are worried about trying to rebuild their business and whether enough followers will migrate with them.

“Whatever is going to happen is going to happen, and we’re just going to make the most of it,” said Nealie Boschma, 27 of Los Angeles, who has been living as a full-time creator since 2022. “That’s just how I have to look at it, so I don’t panic.”

Despite the potential upheaval, Boschma, said she views the potential ban as an opportunity to expand her career and get more creative. 

Boschma started making TikTok videos after quitting her job working on a horse farm, choosing to live off of her savings while experimenting as a creator. Boschma’s bet on herself worked and she’s earned enough to live in Los Angeles, paying for her own place and a car.

Now she’s making sure her TikTok fans see the links to her other profiles so they can find her on other apps, including YouTube. If the ban goes through, Boschma said she plans to make a video specifically asking her fans to follow her elsewhere.

It’s going to be quite a lift, as she currently has 2 million TikTok followers compared to just 278,000 on YouTube. But Boschma said she is going to try her hand at making longer-form videos, something she’s always wanted to explore. 

“Whether TikTok goes away or not, I do think something will work out” Boschma said. “I’ll find my footing in other places, like I did on TikTok.”

WATCH: Supreme Court likely to uphold TikTok ban, says Christoff & Co. CEO Niki Christoff

Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg slammed rival tech giant Apple for lackluster innovation efforts and “random rules” in a lengthy podcast interview on Friday.

“On the one hand, [the iPhone has] been great, because now pretty much everyone in the world has a phone, and that’s kind of what enables pretty amazing things,” Zuckerberg said in an episode of the “Joe Rogan Experience.” “But on the other hand … they have used that platform to put in place a lot of rules that I think feel arbitrary and [I] feel like they haven’t really invented anything great in a while. It’s like Steve Jobs invented the iPhone, and now they’re just kind of sitting on it 20 years later.”

Zuckerberg added that he thought iPhone sales were struggling because consumers are taking longer to upgrade their phones because new models aren’t big improvements from prior iterations.

“So how are they making more money as a company? Well, they do it by basically, like, squeezing people, and, like you’re saying, having this 30% tax on developers by getting you to buy more peripherals and things that plug into it,” Zuckerberg said. “You know, they build stuff like Air Pods, which are cool, but they’ve just thoroughly hamstrung the ability for anyone else to build something that can connect to the iPhone in the same way.”

Apple defends itself from pushback from other companies by saying that it doesn’t want to violate consumers’ privacy and security, according to Zuckerberg. But he said that the problem would be solved if Apple fixed its protocol, like building better security and using encryption.

“It’s insecure because you didn’t build any security into it. And then now you’re using that as a justification for why only your product can connect in an easy way,” Zuckerberg said.

Zuckerberg said that if Apple stopped applying its “random rules,” Meta’s profit would double.

He also took shots at Apple’s Vision Pro headset, which had disappointing U.S. sales. Meta sells its own virtual headsets called the Meta Quest.

“I think the Vision Pro is, I think, one of the bigger swings at doing a new thing that they tried in a while,” Zuckerberg said. “And I don’t want to give them too hard of a time on it, because we do a lot of things where the first version isn’t that good, and you want to kind of judge the third version of it. But I mean, the V1, it definitely did not hit it out of the park.”

“I heard it’s really good for watching movies,” he added.

Apple did not immediately respond to a request for comment from CNBC.