Following the failure of United States lawmakers to pass comprehensive digital asset market structure legislation, federal financial regulators have aggressively stepped up efforts to alter the rules surrounding the oversight and enforcement of cryptocurrency companies and offerings. However, the nation’s two primary financial regulatory bodies—the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC)—are currently facing severe understaffing at their leadership levels. This unprecedented administrative vacuum has left sweeping decisions regarding the regulation of various aspects of the sprawling $3 trillion crypto market largely in the hands of just three individuals, a majority of whom were nominated by U.S. President Donald Trump.
At the SEC, the leadership roster has dwindled significantly. Only two commissioners—Chair Paul Atkins and former Acting Chair Mark Uyeda—remain following the departure of Commissioner Hester Peirce earlier this month. The shortage of leadership at the CFTC is even more stark. Michael Selig has been serving as the sole Senate-confirmed chair and commissioner since December 2025. By design, both independent federal agencies are intended to maintain a full complement of five commissioners to ensure a broad spectrum of perspectives, robust debate, and balanced decision-making when shaping rules that govern the American financial system.
With Congress stalled, both agencies have independently proposed new rules that appear to be attempting to take the place of federal legislation in regulating the rapidly evolving cryptocurrency sector. The SEC took an initial step in August by proposing new rules designed to provide digital asset companies with a regulatory safe harbor, shielding certain tokens from being strictly classified and treated as "investment contracts" under federal securities laws. The CFTC followed suit in October. During that announcement, Selig stated that the agency would rely on its "existing statutory authorities" to address crypto market regulation through proposed rules governing digital asset exchanges. Adding to the flurry of administrative rulemaking, SEC Chair Paul Atkins announced on Oct. 2 that "more regulatory proposals [were] on the horizon" for the cryptocurrency industry.
Could One SEC Commissioner Have the Final Say on Crypto Rules?
On Sept. 30, the SEC made these independent regulatory avenues even easier to pursue against the backdrop of its depleted roster of commissioners. The agency released a final rule—which officially went into effect on Oct. 2—stating that the amendments were designed to alter quorum requirements with the stated goal of "promot[ing] flexibility and finality of agency rulemaking." Crucially, the newly implemented rule drastically reduces the number of commissioners required to achieve a working quorum down to just a single person in many cases, provided that only two commissioners are present.
The implications of this administrative shift did not go unnoticed by financial observers and commentators. With only two commissioners currently sitting on the panel, and acknowledging the statistical reality that one of them might occasionally need to recuse themselves from a specific vote due to potential conflicts of interest or be otherwise absent, just one individual commissioner is now legally sufficient to pass a formal, binding rule that applies directly to America’s vast, multitrillion-dollar securities markets. This critique was highlighted by financial journalist Robin Wigglesworth in an Oct. 5 opinion piece published by the Financial Times, drawing intense scrutiny to the agency’s internal procedural changes.
Mark Uyeda responded to the growing chorus of criticism in his own Financial Times opinion piece, pushing back against the narrative that the agency was acting inappropriately. Uyeda asserted that the SEC’s "commitment to its mission remains unchanged" despite operating with only two commissioners and the continued absence of any formal announcements from the White House regarding additional nominations to fill the lingering empty seats. The policymaker argued that the controversial rule change merely "clarifies that the Commission can establish a quorum if all but one commissioner is disqualified from a matter."
Addressing the harsher characterizations of the agency’s internal procedural adjustments, Uyeda wrote that suggesting the SEC was "hastily revamp[ing]" its quorum rule so that the remaining commissioners could "have their way" makes for a colorful comparison to fictional dystopian regimes. Furthermore, he argued that such framing actively misleads readers regarding both the true motivations behind the Commission’s decision to revise its quorum rule and the functional benefits it brings to agency operations during a period of administrative transition.
Despite these assurances from within the agency, the broader political and legislative landscape remains fraught with uncertainty. As of Tuesday, the White House had not yet announced any formal nominations for either the SEC or the CFTC. This administrative stalemate potentially leaves the entire rulemaking and enforcement process in the hands of a single decision-maker at each respective agency for months, if not longer. Meanwhile, Congress retains a narrow window of opportunity to return to the negotiating table and vote on the primary legislative centerpiece of the ongoing debate: the Digital Asset Market Clarity (CLARITY) Act. However, numerous political analysts and regulatory experts remain skeptical, expressing doubt that lawmakers will muster the political will or consensus necessary to advance the legislation during the lame-duck session between the conclusion of the 2026 midterm elections and the formal swearing-in of the next congressional session in January.
