After appearances from Boris Johnson, Matt Hancock and a range of Downing Street advisers, it is now time for Rishi Sunak to be questioned at the official COVID inquiry.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:42
Sir Chris Whitty says the first lockdown was ‘a bit too late’
Lockdown timing
Many of the hearings in this section of the inquiry have focused on whether the government locked down the country at the right time – or whether the decision was left too late.
While many of the advisers and ministers have said it was the latter, then prime minister Mr Johnson appeared to stand by his decision to wait – telling the inquiry he “can’t say” whether he would have “gone earlier”.
As a very senior member of the prime minister’s cabinet at the time, Mr Sunak is sure to be asked where he stands on the ongoing debate.
Image: Dominic Cummings’ WhatsApps were read to him during his inquiry hearing
‘Just let people die’
More on Covid Inquiry
Related Topics:
Many who have faced the inquiry have suggested Mr Sunak had an aversion to locking down as he sought to protect the economy and, in turn, the Treasury’s coffers.
His scepticism is said to have grown throughout the crisis, telling one meeting that the government should be “handling the scientists, not the virus” – unbeknownst to him, the scientists were listening in.
Advertisement
But the most graphic allegation around his views came from an entry in the chief scientific adviser’s diary as senior figures discussed heading into a second national lockdown in October 2020.
Sir Patrick Vallance wrote that chief adviser Dominic Cummings claimed “Rishi thinks just let people die and that’s okay”.
We know from his top economic adviser, Clare Lombardelli, that Mr Sunak was told by officials to push back hard against a “catastrophic” circuit breaker in September.
But the now prime minister is sure to be asked about Mr Cummings’s remarks, and whether that is what he believed.
Image: Helen McNamara claims there was a ‘sexist’ culture in Downing Street
Working environment
Another element highlighted in several of the hearings were claims of a “toxic” culture inside Downing Street during the pandemic.
Deputy cabinet secretary Helen McNamara described the environment as “sexist” and “awful”, telling the inquiry how women were routinely “ignored” and issues that particularly affected them – such as childcare, domestic abuse and access to abortions – were not being considered.
She was also the subject of vitriolic messages from Mr Cummings, who used four-letter words and descriptions of how he wanted to “handcuff” her.
As a part of the top team, Mr Sunak may well be asked what his experience of working in Downing Street was throughout COVID.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:55
Boris Johnson was heckled at COVID inquiry as he said ‘sorry’
Johnson critique
The pandemic prime minister has faced reams of criticism throughout the recent hearings – from being nicknamed a “shopping trolley” due to how much his opinion allegedly veered, through to claims he didn’t even understand the science being put to him.
As his right hand man in Number 11, Mr Sunak is likely to be asked for his opinion on Mr Johnson’s abilities, and his decision-making throughout.
And everyone else has been asked about what they thought of Mr Hancock too, so we can expect to hear Mr Sunak’s conclusions on the work of the then health secretary.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:24
Simon Ridley says the COVID taskforce was ‘blindsided’ by Eat Out to Help Out
Eat Out to Help Out
This scheme, aimed at helping the hospitality sector recover after being hit hard by lockdowns, is one Mr Sunak has long celebrated.
He said the plan helped save millions of jobs in pubs, restaurants and cafes, as well as enabled people to return to doing the things they loved.
But soon after the scheme ended, studies were linking it to a rise in infections – which ultimately led to more deaths and a further lockdown – and that claim has been repeated at the inquiry.
One of the government’s senior scientific advisers, Professor Dame Angela McLean, even dubbed the chancellor “Dr Death” in messages to a colleague.
It was also revealed by Sir Patrick Vallance that the Treasury announced the scheme without seeking advice from scientists or medical advisers.
So we imagine a strong grilling of Mr Sunak over how he formed the policy, and the impact it had.
Image: Boris Johnson pictured toasting staff in Downing Street during lockdown
There was palpable anger from the public as the gatherings began to be revealed, with stories of suitcases full of wine, karaoke machines and staff throwing up on the walls all surfacing.
However, it was a more sedate, albeit still rule-breaking affair – a birthday party for Mr Johnson in the Cabinet Room – that saw both Mr Sunak and his boss receive fixed penalty notices from the police.
The now prime minister has defended himself before, saying he was only in the room as he had arrived early for a meeting – though he did accept and pay the fine.
But having been found to have broken the rules and played a part in this national scandal, he is sure to face questions about it.
A growing rift has emerged in Washington, D.C., between the cryptocurrency industry and labor unions as lawmakers debate whether to ease rules allowing cryptocurrencies in 401(k) retirement accounts.
The dispute centers on proposed market structure legislation that would allow retirement accounts to gain exposure to crypto, a move labor groups say could expose workers to speculative risk. In a letter sent on Wednesday to the US Senate Banking Committee, the American Federation of Teachers argued that cryptocurrencies are too volatile for pension and retirement savings, warning that workers could face significant losses.
The letter drew immediate pushback from crypto investors and industry figures. “The American Federation of Teachers has somehow developed the most logically incoherent, least educated take one could possibly author on the matter of crypto market structure regulation,” a crypto investor said on X.
The AFT letter to Congress opposes regulatory changes that would allow 401(k) retirement accounts to hold alternative assets, including cryptocurrency. Source: CNBC
In response to the letter, Castle Island Ventures partner Sean Judge said the bill would improve oversight and reduce systemic risk, while enabling pension funds to access an asset class that has delivered strong long-term returns.
Consensys attorney Bill Hughes said the AFT’s opposition to the crypto market structure bill was politically motivated, accusing the group of acting as an extension of Democratic lawmakers.
Funds held in US retirement accounts by type of account plan. Source: ICI
Opposition to crypto in retirement and pension funds mounts
Proponents of allowing crypto in retirement portfolios, on the other hand, argue that it democratizes finance, while trade unions have voiced strong opposition to relaxing current regulations, claiming that crypto is too risky for traditional retirement plans.
“Unregulated, risky currencies and investments are not where we should put pensions and retirement savings. The wild, wild west is not what we need, whether it’s crypto, AI, or social media,” AFT president Randi Weingarten said on Thursday.
The AFT represents 1.8 million teachers and educational professionals in the US and is one of the largest teachers’ unions in the country.
According to Better Markets, a nonprofit and nonpartisan advocacy organization, cryptocurrencies are too volatile for traditional retirement portfolios, and their high volatility can create time-horizon mismatches for pension investors seeking a predictable, low-volatility retirement plan.
Bitcoin and Ether volatility compared to other asset classes and stock indexes. Source: US Federal Reserve
In October, the American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations (AFL-CIO) also wrote to Congress opposing provisions within the crypto market structure regulatory bill.
The AFL-CIO, the largest federation of trade unions in the US, wrote that cryptocurrencies are volatile and pose a systemic risk to pension funds and the broader financial system.
The US Office of the Comptroller of the Currency has conditionally approved five national bank charter applications for companies tied to the digital assets industry.
In a Friday notice, the OCC said it had conditionally approved BitGo, Fidelity, and Paxos to convert their existing state-level trust companies into federally chartered national trust banks. In the same announcement, the regulator said it had conditionally approved new applications from Circle and Ripple for national trust bank charters.
“New entrants into the federal banking sector are good for consumers, the banking industry and the economy,” said Jonathan Gould, the Comptroller of the Currency, adding: “The OCC will continue to provide a path for both traditional and innovative approaches to financial services to ensure the federal banking system keeps pace with the evolution of finance and supports a modern economy.”
Europe’s crypto regulatory framework is entering a new phase of scrutiny as policymakers weigh whether enforcement of the Markets in Crypto-Assets (MiCA) regulation should remain with national authorities or be centralized under the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA).
MiCA, which came largely into force at the beginning of 2025, was designed to create a unified rulebook for crypto-asset service providers across the European Union.
But as implementation progresses, disparities between member states are becoming harder to ignore. Some regulators have approved dozens of licenses, while others have issued only a handful, prompting concerns about inconsistent supervision and regulatory arbitrage.
In this week’s episode of Byte-Sized Insight, Cointelegraph explored what those growing pains mean for Europe’s crypto market with Lewin Boehnke, chief strategy officer at Crypto Finance Group — a Switzerland-based digital asset firm with operations across the EU.
Uneven enforcement fuels calls for oversight
According to Boehnke, the core challenge facing Europe isn’t the MiCA framework itself, but rather how it is being applied differently across jurisdictions.
“There is a very, very uneven application of the regulation,” he said, pointing to stark contrasts between member states. Germany, for example, has already granted around 30 crypto licenses, many to established banks, while Luxembourg has approved just three, all to major, well-known firms.
The ESMA released a peer review of the Malta Financial Services Authority’s authorization of a crypto service provider, finding that the regulator only “partially met expectations.”
Those disparities have helped fuel support among some regulators and policymakers for transferring supervisory powers to ESMA, which would create a more centralized enforcement model similar to the US Securities and Exchange Commission.
France, Austria and Italy have all signaled support for such a move, particularly amid criticism of more permissive regimes elsewhere in the bloc.
From Boehnke’s perspective, centralization could be less about control and more about efficiency.
“From just purely the practical point of view, I think it would be a good idea to have a unified… application of the regulation,” he said, adding that direct engagement with the ESMA could reduce delays caused by back-and-forth between national authorities.
MiCA’s design praised, but technical questions remain
Despite criticism from some corners of the crypto industry, Boehnke said MiCA’s overarching structure is sound, particularly its focus on regulating intermediaries rather than peer-to-peer activity.
“I do like MiCA regulation… the overarching approach of regulating not necessarily the assets, not the peer-to-peer use, but the custodians and the ones that offer services… that is the right approach.”
However, he also noted that unresolved technical questions are slowing adoption, especially for banks. One example is MiCA’s requirement that custodians be able to return client assets “immediately,” a phrase that remains open to interpretation.
“Does that mean withdrawal of the crypto? Or is it good enough to sell the crypto and withdraw the fiat immediately?” Boehnke asked, noting that such ambiguities are still being worked through and are awaiting clarity from ESMA.
To hear the complete conversation on Byte-Sized Insight, listen to the full episode on Cointelegraph’s Podcasts page, Apple Podcasts or Spotify. And don’t forget to check out Cointelegraph’s full lineup of other shows!