What to expect from new crypto legislation on the crime prevention side of it
Republican presidential nominee and former U.S. President Donald Trump gestures at the Bitcoin 2024 event in Nashville, Tennessee, U.S., July 27, 2024.
Kevin Wurm | Reuters
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.
The value of bitcoin has risen significantly over the past three months in what has been a risk-on market environment.
“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.
Formula One F1 – United States Grand Prix – Circuit of the Americas, Austin, Texas, U.S. – October 23, 2022 Tim Cook waves the chequered flag to the race winner Red Bull’s Max Verstappen
Mike Segar | Reuters
Apple had two major launches last month. They couldn’t have been more different.
First, Apple revealed some of the artificial intelligence advancements it had been working on in the past year when it released developer versions of its operating systems to muted applause at its annual developer’s conference, WWDC. Then, at the end of the month, Apple hit the red carpet as its first true blockbuster movie, “F1,” debuted to over $155 million — and glowing reviews — in its first weekend.
While “F1” was a victory lap for Apple, highlighting the strength of its long-term outlook, the growth of its services business and its ability to tap into culture, Wall Street’s reaction to the company’s AI announcements at WWDC suggest there’s some trouble underneath the hood.
“F1” showed Apple at its best — in particular, its ability to invest in new, long-term projects. When Apple TV+ launched in 2019, it had only a handful of original shows and one movie, a film festival darling called “Hala” that didn’t even share its box office revenue.
Despite Apple TV+ being written off as a costly side-project, Apple stuck with its plan over the years, expanding its staff and operation in Culver City, California. That allowed the company to build up Hollywood connections, especially for TV shows, and build an entertainment track record. Now, an Apple Original can lead the box office on a summer weekend, the prime season for blockbuster films.
The success of “F1” also highlights Apple’s significant marketing machine and ability to get big-name talent to appear with its leadership. Apple pulled out all the stops to market the movie, including using its Wallet app to send a push notification with a discount for tickets to the film. To promote “F1,” Cook appeared with movie star Brad Pitt at an Apple store in New York and posted a video with actual F1 racer Lewis Hamilton, who was one of the film’s producers.
(L-R) Brad Pitt, Lewis Hamilton, Tim Cook, and Damson Idris attend the World Premiere of “F1: The Movie” in Times Square on June 16, 2025 in New York City.
Jamie Mccarthy | Getty Images Entertainment | Getty Images
Although Apple services chief Eddy Cue said in a recent interview that Apple needs the its film business to be profitable to “continue to do great things,” “F1” isn’t just about the bottom line for the company.
Apple’s Hollywood productions are perhaps the most prominent face of the company’s services business, a profit engine that has been an investor favorite since the iPhone maker started highlighting the division in 2016.
Films will only ever be a small fraction of the services unit, which also includes payments, iCloud subscriptions, magazine bundles, Apple Music, game bundles, warranties, fees related to digital payments and ad sales. Plus, even the biggest box office smashes would be small on Apple’s scale — the company does over $1 billion in sales on average every day.
But movies are the only services component that can get celebrities like Pitt or George Clooney to appear next to an Apple logo — and the success of “F1” means that Apple could do more big popcorn films in the future.
“Nothing breeds success or inspires future investment like a current success,” said Comscore senior media analyst Paul Dergarabedian.
But if “F1” is a sign that Apple’s services business is in full throttle, the company’s AI struggles are a “check engine” light that won’t turn off.
Replacing Siri’s engine
At WWDC last month, Wall Street was eager to hear about the company’s plans for Apple Intelligence, its suite of AI features that it first revealed in 2024. Apple Intelligence, which is a key tenet of the company’s hardware products, had a rollout marred by delays and underwhelming features.
Apple spent most of WWDC going over smaller machine learning features, but did not reveal what investors and consumers increasingly want: A sophisticated Siri that can converse fluidly and get stuff done, like making a restaurant reservation. In the age of OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Anthropic’s Claude and Google’s Gemini, the expectation of AI assistants among consumers is growing beyond “Siri, how’s the weather?”
The company had previewed a significantly improved Siri in the summer of 2024, but earlier this year, those features were delayed to sometime in 2026. At WWDC, Apple didn’t offer any updates about the improved Siri beyond that the company was “continuing its work to deliver” the features in the “coming year.” Some observers reduced their expectations for Apple’s AI after the conference.
“Current expectations for Apple Intelligence to kickstart a super upgrade cycle are too high, in our view,” wrote Jefferies analysts this week.
Siri should be an example of how Apple’s ability to improve products and projects over the long-term makes it tough to compete with.
It beat nearly every other voice assistant to market when it first debuted on iPhones in 2011. Fourteen years later, Siri remains essentially the same one-off, rigid, question-and-answer system that struggles with open-ended questions and dates, even after the invention in recent years of sophisticated voice bots based on generative AI technology that can hold a conversation.
Apple’s strongest rivals, including Android parent Google, have done way more to integrate sophisticated AI assistants into their devices than Apple has. And Google doesn’t have the same reflex against collecting data and cloud processing as privacy-obsessed Apple.
Some analysts have said they believe Apple has a few years before the company’s lack of competitive AI features will start to show up in device sales, given the company’s large installed base and high customer loyalty. But Apple can’t get lapped before it re-enters the race, and its former design guru Jony Ive is now working on new hardware with OpenAI, ramping up the pressure in Cupertino.
“The three-year problem, which is within an investment time frame, is that Android is racing ahead,” Needham senior internet analyst Laura Martin said on CNBC this week.
Apple’s services success with projects like “F1” is an example of what the company can do when it sets clear goals in public and then executes them over extended time-frames.
Its AI strategy could use a similar long-term plan, as customers and investors wonder when Apple will fully embrace the technology that has captivated Silicon Valley.
Wall Street’s anxiety over Apple’s AI struggles was evident this week after Bloomberg reported that Apple was considering replacing Siri’s engine with Anthropic or OpenAI’s technology, as opposed to its own foundation models.
The move, if it were to happen, would contradict one of Apple’s most important strategies in the Cook era: Apple wants to own its core technologies, like the touchscreen, processor, modem and maps software, not buy them from suppliers.
Using external technology would be an admission that Apple Foundation Models aren’t good enough yet for what the company wants to do with Siri.
“They’ve fallen farther and farther behind, and they need to supercharge their generative AI efforts” Martin said. “They can’t do that internally.”
Apple might even pay billions for the use of Anthropic’s AI software, according to the Bloomberg report. If Apple were to pay for AI, it would be a reversal from current services deals, like the search deal with Alphabet where the Cupertino company gets paid $20 billion per year to push iPhone traffic to Google Search.
The company didn’t confirm the report and declined comment, but Wall Street welcomed the report and Apple shares rose.
In the world of AI in Silicon Valley, signing bonuses for the kinds of engineers that can develop new models can range up to $100 million, according to OpenAI CEO Sam Altman.
“I can’t see Apple doing that,” Martin said.
Earlier this week, Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg sent a memo bragging about hiring 11 AI experts from companies such as OpenAI, Anthropic, and Google’s DeepMind. That came after Zuckerberg hired Scale AI CEO Alexandr Wang to lead a new AI division as part of a $14.3 billion deal.
Meta’s not the only company to spend hundreds of millions on AI celebrities to get them in the building. Google spent big to hire away the founders of Character.AI, Microsoft got its AI leader by striking a deal with Inflection and Amazon hired the executive team of Adept to bulk up its AI roster.
Apple, on the other hand, hasn’t announced any big AI hires in recent years. While Cook rubs shoulders with Pitt, the actual race may be passing Apple by.
Tesla CEO Elon Musk speaks alongside U.S. President Donald Trump to reporters in the Oval Office of the White House on May 30, 2025 in Washington, DC.
Kevin Dietsch | Getty Images
Tesla CEO Elon Musk, who bombarded President Donald Trump‘s signature spending bill for weeks, on Friday made his first comments since the legislation passed.
Musk backed a post on X by Sen. Rand Paul, R-Ky., who said the bill’s budget “explodes the deficit” and continues a pattern of “short-term politicking over long-term sustainability.”
The House of Representatives narrowly passed the One Big Beautiful Bill Act on Thursday, sending it to Trump to sign into law.
Paul and Musk have been vocal opponents of Trump’s tax and spending bill, and repeatedly called out the potential for the spending package to increase the national debt.
On Monday, Musk called it the “DEBT SLAVERY bill.”
The independent Congressional Budget Office has said the bill could add $3.4 trillion to the $36.2 trillion of U.S. debt over the next decade. The White House has labeled the agency as “partisan” and continuously refuted the CBO’s estimates.
The bill includes trillions of dollars in tax cuts, increased spending for immigration enforcement and large cuts to funding for Medicaid and other programs.
It also cuts tax credits and support for solar and wind energy and electric vehicles, a particularly sore spot for Musk, who has several companies that benefit from the programs.
“I took away his EV Mandate that forced everyone to buy Electric Cars that nobody else wanted (that he knew for months I was going to do!), and he just went CRAZY!” Trump wrote in a social media post in early June as the pair traded insults and threats.
Shares of Tesla plummeted as the feud intensified, with the company losing $152 billion in market cap on June 5 and putting the company below $1 trillion in value. The stock has largely rebounded since, but is still below where it was trading before the ruckus with Trump.
Tesla one-month stock chart.
— CNBC’s Kevin Breuninger and Erin Doherty contributed to this article.
-
Sports3 years ago‘Storybook stuff’: Inside the night Bryce Harper sent the Phillies to the World Series
-
Sports1 year agoStory injured on diving stop, exits Red Sox game
-
Sports2 years agoGame 1 of WS least-watched in recorded history
-
Sports2 years agoMLB Rank 2023: Ranking baseball’s top 100 players
-
Sports4 years ago
Team Europe easily wins 4th straight Laver Cup
-
Environment2 years agoJapan and South Korea have a lot at stake in a free and open South China Sea
-
Sports2 years agoButton battles heat exhaustion in NASCAR debut
-
Environment2 years agoGame-changing Lectric XPedition launched as affordable electric cargo bike