Senator Cory Booker is warning that the odds of passing a comprehensive crypto market structure bill in this Congress are slim unless Democrats are guaranteed meaningful representation at the top of key financial regulators, particularly the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) and the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC).
Booker, a Democrat from New Jersey and one of the central negotiators on the Senate’s high‑profile crypto legislation, said that verbal assurances from the White House about future appointments will not be enough to secure his support. In his view, any deal that effectively hands enormous regulatory power to agencies without clear partisan balance at the leadership level is politically untenable and structurally dangerous.
He stressed that the bill under discussion would dramatically expand the authority of regulators like the SEC and CFTC over the digital assets industry. That makes the question of who runs those agencies—and whether both parties have a real say—far more than a procedural detail. It goes to the heart of whether the regulatory framework will be seen as legitimate, stable, and durable.
Booker also voiced deep concern about a looming Supreme Court decision that could fundamentally reshape the relationship between the White House and independent agencies. The court appears poised, he said, to grant former President Donald Trump, if reelected, the power to remove commissioners at will from bodies like the SEC and CFTC—institutions that traditionally have enjoyed a degree of insulation from direct presidential control.
For Booker, that possibility radically raises the stakes of the current legislative negotiations. A crypto market structure bill would not just define which agency oversees what; it would also concentrate power in regulators whose leadership could be abruptly reshuffled for partisan reasons in the future. If a president can fire commissioners at will, the risk is that crypto policy could swing wildly from administration to administration.
“It is a deep concern,” Booker said on Tuesday on the sidelines of a blockchain industry event. He framed the issue not as an abstract constitutional debate, but as a practical question of whether the United States can build a coherent and predictable framework for digital assets.
In his view, the combination of a powerful regulatory regime and fragile institutional safeguards is a recipe for instability. Crypto companies, investors, and consumers, he argued, need a sense that the rules of the road will endure beyond the next election cycle. Without that assurance, the bill could end up deepening uncertainty instead of resolving it.
Booker made clear he does not intend to simply take the administration’s word that future nominations will preserve Democratic influence at the SEC and CFTC. He indicated that he and other Democrats want more concrete guarantees—whether in the legislative text, in the structure of the agencies’ new powers, or in some enforceable commitment about how vacancies and leadership transitions will be handled.
The New Jersey senator has carved out a role as both a skeptic of a laissez‑faire approach to crypto and a critic of overly punitive or ambiguous enforcement. He has repeatedly argued that digital assets need tailored rules that protect consumers, safeguard financial stability, and encourage responsible innovation. But those rules, he stressed, must be administered by regulators that reflect the country’s political diversity, not by a single party unchecked.
At the center of the Senate talks is a sweeping “market structure” bill meant to answer two core questions: Which crypto assets are securities and which are commodities, and which federal agency has primary oversight in each case? The proposal would likely give the CFTC expanded jurisdiction over many tokens that function more like commodities, while clarifying the SEC’s role over assets that behave like traditional securities.
In practice, that would give the heads of both agencies enormous discretion in interpreting the law, writing rules, and bringing enforcement actions. Booker fears that if one party or one president holds disproportionate sway over those appointments, crypto policy could become a political weapon rather than a neutral regulatory framework.
He also alluded to the broader context of administrative law. If the Supreme Court weakens long‑standing doctrines that give agencies space to interpret ambiguous statutes, courts could end up second‑guessing crypto rules more frequently. Coupled with the potential for presidents to rapidly reshuffle commissioners, the result could be a turbulent regulatory environment just as the United States is trying to catch up with other jurisdictions on digital assets.
From a legislative strategy standpoint, Booker’s stance complicates efforts to build a bipartisan coalition. Many Republicans want a bill that constrains the SEC, curbs what they see as regulatory overreach, and gives more authority to the CFTC, which they often view as more market‑friendly. Some are less concerned about partisan balance at the agencies and more focused on limiting their powers altogether.
Democrats, by contrast, are wary of weakening investor protections or creating what they perceive as loopholes for speculative or predatory practices. For lawmakers like Booker, the idea of transferring substantial authority to agencies that could be quickly stacked with loyalists of a future administration—especially one openly skeptical of independent regulators—is deeply problematic.
This tension is emerging at a time when the crypto industry is urgently seeking clarity. Multiple high‑profile bankruptcies, enforcement actions, and courtroom defeats for both regulators and companies have underscored that the current patchwork of guidance, enforcement, and decades‑old statutes is ill‑suited to a technological paradigm that moves at internet speed.
Booker acknowledged that doing nothing is not an attractive option. Without legislation, the SEC and CFTC will continue to regulate through enforcement and piecemeal guidance, leaving companies unsure where the lines are drawn. That uncertainty can drive innovation and capital offshore, he said, but it does not justify rushing through a bill that builds a powerful framework on an unstable institutional foundation.
He also emphasized the consumer‑protection dimension of the debate. Millions of Americans now hold some form of digital asset, whether directly or through investment products. A poorly structured regulatory system that can be whipsawed by political changes risks leaving ordinary investors exposed to shifting rules and uneven enforcement. Long‑term confidence, he argued, depends on both clear statutes and credible institutions.
Booker’s concerns extend beyond partisan balance to broader questions of governance. If commissioners become effectively at‑will employees of the president, the independence of the SEC and CFTC could be fundamentally compromised. That independence has historically been central to market confidence, allowing these agencies to make unpopular but necessary decisions without fear of immediate political retaliation.
For the crypto sector, this matters because many of the decisions on token classification, exchange registration, custody standards, and stablecoin oversight will require regulators to take positions that may anger powerful interests. Booker suggested that commissioners should not have to weigh each decision against the risk of being fired for crossing the White House.
Policy analysts note that Booker’s demands for concrete safeguards could take several forms. Lawmakers could write explicit requirements for bipartisan representation into the governance structure of any new crypto oversight bodies. They might condition certain authorities on multi‑member commission votes rather than vesting them in a single chair. Or they could include mechanisms that make it harder to abruptly remove commissioners without cause, though such provisions might collide with whatever the Supreme Court ultimately decides.
The politics of appointments are also intertwined with timing. If a bill passes late in a presidential term, the next administration could inherit newly empowered agencies and quickly reshape their leadership. That possibility is not lost on lawmakers from either party, who understand that regulatory architecture built now will be used by future presidents whose agendas they may not share.
Booker’s warning is therefore as much about the long game as about the current negotiations. He appears unwilling to sign off on a crypto framework that, in his view, could be weaponized or radically reinterpreted by a future administration determined to either dismantle crypto markets or deregulate them to the point of systemic risk.
Still, he left the door open to a deal if these structural concerns are addressed. For him, a viable crypto bill must rest on three pillars: clear statutory definitions, robust investor and market protections, and institutional guardrails that preserve independent, balanced oversight over time. Absent that third pillar—guaranteed, meaningful Democratic representation and genuine agency independence—Booker believes the chances of passage are low and the risks of moving forward are too great.
Until those issues are resolved, the crypto industry will remain in a holding pattern: pushing for clarity, lobbying both parties, and waiting to see whether Congress can produce a durable framework that survives not just market cycles, but political ones as well.