Former US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) member Paul Atkins is scheduled to appear before lawmakers in the Senate Banking Committee on March 27 as part of the Trump administration’s efforts to get the president’s picks into high-level government positions.
Since US President Donald Trump took office on Jan. 20, the SEC, under the leadership of acting chair Mark Uyeda, has dropped several investigations and enforcement actions against major crypto firms, many of which had been in court for months or years. Many analysts see the SEC’s recent actions as the administration acting on its campaign promises to the crypto industry, of which some figures donated directly to the then-presidential candidate or his inauguration fund after the Nov. 5 election.
The commission’s actions — which include declaring that memecoins aren’t securities — also stand in stark contrast to its position under former chair Gary Gensler, leading many to speculate that the SEC under Trump will lead to a booming US crypto industry essentially free of regulatory scrutiny.
Atkins, whom Trump picked in December 2024 and officially nominated after taking office, received support from industry players at Coinbase and Ripple, both of which had ongoing enforcement actions brought by the SEC. The cases have since been dropped.
Given the SEC’s seeming about-face on crypto enforcement and Trump’s potential conflicts of interest with the industry — with ties to the crypto firm World Liberty Financial and the launch of his own memecoin — some lawmakers are likely to question Atkins’ views on digital assets at the confirmation hearing.
If confirmed by the Senate, Atkins could return to a soon-to-be entirely Republican-controlled SEC, with Democratic Commissioner Caroline Crenshaw expected to leave by 2026.
It’s unclear if Atkins will have the votes to pass a confirmation hearing in the banking committee or a full floor vote in the Senate. Republicans hold a 53-seat majority in the chamber with only 51 votes required to confirm a nominee, and — with the exception of former Representative Matt Gaetz for US Attorney General — have not suggested that they intend to oppose any of Trump’s picks for crucial government positions.
Democratic opposition to Atkins’ nomination
Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, the top Democrat on the banking committee who has often equated crypto with drug trafficking and other illicit actions, said in a March 23 letter to Atkins that she had concerns about his potential role at the SEC after his consulting firm, Patomak Global Partners, was an adviser to defunct crypto exchange FTX. He was also an adviser to the advocacy group Chamber of Digital Commerce.
“Your deep involvement with FTX and other high-paying crypto clients raises questions about your approach to crypto regulation — and concerns about the extent of your knowledge of FTX’s illegal activities,” said Warren, adding:
“Your financial ties to the industries you will soon regulate raise serious concerns about your ability to avoid conflicts of interest as a regulator.”
Warren suggested that some members of the Senate would likely question Trump’s pick about the SEC recently dropping enforcement cases against crypto firms, reports that Trump’s family had held talks with Binance about acquiring a stake in the company as well as a possible pardon for former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao, how Atkins intends to apply securities laws to digital assets if confirmed, and the commission’s recent opinion that memecoins were not securities.
She hinted that Atkins may have also communicated with Republican SEC commissioners Uyeda and Hester Peirce after being nominated.
Ahead of his hearing, Atkins has already met with Republican lawmakers on the committee, including Wyoming Senator Cynthia Lummis. Cointelegraph contacted Lummis’ office for comment on Atkins’ nomination but hadn’t received a response at the time of publication.
If his nomination moves through the Banking Committee and the Senate, Atkins would likely be confirmed to a term ending in June 2031, taking over as chair from Uyeda. In addition to the commission dropping investigations and enforcement actions, the SEC acting chair has proposed abandoning rules requiring crypto firms to register with the agency.
The SEC has just issued its second “no-action letter” toward a decentralized physical infrastructure network (DePIN) crypto project in recent months, giving its native token “regulatory cover” from enforcement.
The no-action letter was sent to the Solana DePIN project Fuse, which issues a network token, FUSE, as a reward to those actively maintaining the network.
Fuse initially submitted a letter to the SEC’s Division of Corporation Finance on Nov. 19, asking for official confirmation that it would not recommend the SEC take enforcement action if the project continues to offer and sell FUSE tokens.
Fuse also outlined in its letter that FUSE is designed for network utility and consumptive purposes, not for speculation. They can only be redeemed for an average market price via third parties.
“Based on the facts presented, the Division will not recommend enforcement action to the Commission if, in reliance on your opinion as counsel, Fuse offers and sells the Tokens in the manner and under the circumstances described in your letter,” the Division of Corporation Finance’s deputy chief counsel, Jonathan Ingram, wrote on Monday.
SEC’s no-action letter to Fuse Crypto. Source: SEC
The latest SEC no-action letter comes just a few months after the SEC issued a similar “highly coveted” letter to Double Zero, which was seen as a result of a new, more crypto-friendly leadership at the SEC.
At the time, DoubleZero co-founder Austin Federa said such letters are common in TradFi but are “very rare” in the crypto space.
“It was a months long process, but we found the SEC to be quite receptive, we found them to be quite professional, quite diligent, there was no crypto animosity.”
The SEC was put under new leadership in April, after Paul Atkins was sworn in as the 34th chairman, and the agency has since been seen taking a more balanced approach to crypto. As part of the leadership, crypto-friendly Hester Peirce also heads up the agency’s crypto task force.
SEC no-action letters are a form of regulatory clarity
Adding to the discussion on X, Rebecca Rettig, a legal representative of Solana MEV infrastructure platform Jito Labs, said that no-action letters are sought after by many crypto projects.
“Why do crypto teams want them? ‘Regulatory clarity.’ If you’re planning to issue a token, a NAL provides reasonable assurance you won’t face immediate enforcement for violations of securities laws. It’s a kind of ‘regulatory cover,’” she wrote.
SEC giving a pass to Fuse wasn’t unexpected: Crypto lawyer
The no-action letter doesn’t necessarily set any new precedents, however.
Commenting on the subject via X on Monday, Consensys lawyer Bill Hughes said this was “an easy case,” given the nature of Fuse’s token.
“The take away is that there is not a lawyer in crypto that would have thought this token was a security. And maybe not even any lawyer who is merely familiar with Howey,” Hughes said.
The same month that Double Zero secured its no-action letter, the SEC also issued a similar no-action letter for crypto-custodians that don’t qualify as banks.
While they still have to meet strict conditions, the no-action letter provides clear guidelines for acceptable ways for these types of firms to operate and deal with crypto, something which the industry has been begging for over the past few years.
This is going to be a big budget – not to mention a complex budget.
It could, depending on how it lands, determine the fate of this government. And it’s hard to think of many other budgets that have been preceded by quite so much speculation, briefing, and rumour.
All of which is to say, you could be forgiven for feeling rather overwhelmed.
But in practice, what’s happening this week can really be boiled down to three things.
1. Not enough growth
The first is that the economy is not growing as fast as many people had hoped. Or, to put it another way, Britain’s productivity growth is much weaker than it once used to be.
The upshot of that is that there’s less money flowing into the exchequer in the form of tax revenues.
2. Not enough cuts
The second factor is that last year and this, the chancellor promised to make certain cuts to welfare – cuts that would have saved the government billions of pounds of spending a year.
But it has failed to implement those cuts. Put those extra billions together with the shortfall from that weaker productivity, and it’s pretty clear there is a looming hole in the public finances.
3. Not enough levers
The third thing to bear in mind is that Rachel Reeves has pledged to tie her hands in the way she responds to this fiscal hole.
She has fiscal rules that mean she can’t ignore it. She has a manifesto pledge which means she is somewhat limited in the levers she can pull to fill it.
Put it all together, and it adds up to a momentous headache for the chancellor. She needs to raise quite a lot of money and all the “easy” ways of doing it (like raising income tax rates or VAT) seem to be off the table.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
4:24
The Budget Explained – in 60 seconds
So… what will she do?
Quite how she responds remains to be seen – as does the precise size of the fiscal hole. But if the rumours in Westminster are to be believed, she will fall back upon two tricks most of her predecessors have tried at various points.
First, she will deploy “fiscal drag” to squeeze extra income tax and national insurance payments out of families for the coming five years.
What this means in practice is that even though the headline rate of income tax might not go up, the amount of income we end up being taxed on will grow ever higher in the coming years.
Second, the chancellor is expected to squeeze government spending in the distant years for which she doesn’t yet need to provide detailed plans.
Together, these measures may raise somewhere in the region of £10bn. But Reeves’s big problem is that in practice she needs to raise two or three times this amount. So, how will she do that?
Most likely is that she implements a grab-bag of other tax measures: more expensive council tax for high value properties; new CGT rules; new gambling taxes and more.
No return to austerity, but an Osborne-like predicament…
If this summons up a particular memory from history, it’s precisely the same problem George Osborne faced back in 2012. He wanted to raise quite a lot of money but due to agreements with his coalition partners, he was limited in how many big taxes he could raise.
The resulting budget was, at the time at least, the single most complex budget in history. Consider: in the years between 1970 and 2010 the average UK budget contained 14 tax measures. Osborne’s 2012 budget contained a whopping 61 of them.
And not long after he delivered it, the budget started to unravel. You probably recall the pasty tax, and maybe the granny tax and the charity tax. Essentially, he was forced into a series of embarrassing U-turns. If there was a lesson, it was that trying to wodge so many money-raising measures into a single fiscal event was an accident waiting to happen.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:34
Can the budget fix economic woes?
Except that… here’s the interesting thing. In the following years, the complexity of budgets didn’t fall – it rose. Osborne broke his own complexity record the next year with the 2013 budget (73 tax measures), and then again in 2016 (86 measures). By 2020 the budget contained a staggering 103 measures. And Reeves’s own first budget, last autumn, very nearly broke this record with 94 measures.
In short, budgets have become more and more complex, chock-full of even more (often microscopic) tax measures.
In part, this is a consequence of the fact that, long ago, chancellors seem to have agreed that it would be political suicide to raise the basic rate of income tax or VAT. The consequence is that they have been forced to resort to ever smaller and fiddlier measures to make their numbers add up.
The question is whether this pattern continues this week. Do we end up with yet another astoundingly complex budget? Will that slew of measures backfire as they did for Osborne in 2012? And, more to the point, will they actually benefit the UK economy?
A defiant Rachel Reeves has urged Labour MPs to unite behind this week’s budget – but appeared to admit they might not like all of her policies.
Addressing the Parliamentary Labour Party last night, the chancellor described politics as a “team sport” and insisted that tomorrow’s announcements will be “fair”.
Backbenchers are said to have become increasingly frustrated at the prospect of further tax hikes, which come against a backdrop of falling opinion poll ratings.
Ms Reeves argued the budget should be regarded as a package – and not a “pick ‘n’ mix” where MPs “like the cola bottles but not the fruit salad”.
She added that her three top priorities were to cut the cost of living, reduce NHS waiting lists and slash the cost of servicing debt – with £1 in every £10 now spent on interest.
Newspaper reports suggest there were cheers in the room when Ms Reeves vowed to stay in Number 11 and withstand criticism about her handling of the economy.
She was quoted as saying: “I’ll show the media, I’ll show the Tories, I will not let them beat me, I’ll be there on Wednesday, I’ll be there next year, and I’ll be back the year after that.”
The chancellor suggested Labour MPs will be happy with 95% of the budget’s contents, but hinted there are difficult political decisions yet to be announced.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:33
Is growth downgrade a problem for Reeves?
Setback for Reeves as growth forecasts cut
Yesterday, Sky News revealed that the Office for Budget Responsibility’s growth forecasts are going to be downgraded every year until the current parliament ends in 2029.
But he added: “However you cut it, whatever the reasoning, once again, last year, growth will be lower after this budget than before, which is not a great position for a government that had claimed growth as their top priority.”
In some better news for the government, Ms Reeves is expected to announce that she has more headroom than first thought – meaning ministers will be able to claim that the country is no longer in an “economic doom loop”.
“That might well be one of the positive surprises when we actually get to Wednesday’s budget,” Coates added on the Politics At Sam and Anne’s podcast.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:18
Employment Rights Bill is ‘anti-growth blueprint’
‘I think she’s doing a terrible job’
Meanwhile, Conservative leader Kemi Badenoch has accused the government of stymying growth and pursuing “job-killing measures”.
She told Sky News that she thinks Ms Reeves is “doing a terrible job” as chancellor – and warned Labour should pay close attention to public perception of the budget.
“A lot of people out there in the country, men and women, thinks that she needs to cut tax, and if she raises it, then she should go,” Ms Badenoch added.
At the CBI conference in London yesterday, the Opposition leader urged the government to scrap the Employment Rights Bill – describing it as an “assault on flexible working” that would empower trade unions and drag the UK back to the 1970s.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
1:02
How do business leaders feel before budget?
Ms Badenoch said: “Killing it would be a signal to the world that Britain still understands what makes an economy grow.
“If the chancellor had any sense, and any regard for business, she would use the budget to say ‘we got this one wrong’ and drop it.”
This Employment Rights Bill includes measures that would ban zero hours contracts, but Ms Badenoch has argued that this would amount to a “de facto ban” on seasonal and flexible work.
The CBI conference marks a difficult anniversary for the government – with attention turning to the speech Ms Reeves gave there a year ago.
Having already delivered her first budget, she had told businesses that she was “not coming back with more borrowing or more taxes” – a statement that flies in the face of what the chancellor is expected to unveil tomorrow.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
2:34
Can the budget fix economic woes?
Greens call for wealth tax
In other developments, the Green Party has called on the government to introduce a 1% tax on wealth over £10m – rising to 2% over £1bn. Its estimates suggest this measure could help potentially raise £15bn a year in revenues.
Zack Polanski also wants the rates of capital gains tax, which is currently one of the lowest among G7 nations, to be raised in line with income tax.
Please use Chrome browser for a more accessible video player
3:35
Sky News goes inside the room where the budget happens
Announcements have been gradually trickling through ahead of the budget tomorrow, with the chancellor widely expected to freeze income tax thresholds once again.
Over the weekend, it was confirmed that rail fares in England will be frozen for the first time since the 1990s – meaning some commuters will save hundreds of pounds on season tickets.