Removes all mention from its agenda for 2026

SEC exam staff will not treat crypto as a standalone risk in its fiscal 2026 priorities, marking a clear departure from the agency’s approach in 2024 and 2025.

The Division of Examinations’ 17-page “2026 Examination Priorities” lays out focus areas for investment advisers, funds, broker-dealers, and market utilities, and reiterates cross-cutting work on information security, operational resiliency, identity theft, the amended Regulation S-P, and anti-money laundering.

In the section on emerging financial technology, the document centers on automated advice, algorithms, and AI, including whether tools produce compliant recommendations.

According to the SEC’s report, there is no mention of crypto, crypto assets, digital assets, virtual currency, or blockchain across any section, including areas where the topic previously appeared, such as fintech and AML.

The omission is notable because the 2024 and 2025 priorities explicitly labeled crypto as a focus. According to the SEC’s 2024 priorities, “Crypto Assets and Emerging Financial Technology” had a named section stating examinations would prioritize firms active in crypto assets and related products.

The 2025 priorities again referenced crypto assets alongside AI, cybersecurity and AML as critical risk areas, with law firm summaries emphasizing sustained attention to firms offering crypto-related services. The 2026 document drops those references entirely, even as other technology topics expand.

A simple before-and-after view of the written priorities captures the shift.

The policy and personnel backdrop helps explain the timing.

The White House pivoted in early 2025 with directives to support the responsible growth and use of digital assets, to limit federal work on central bank digital currency, and to stand up a President’s Working Group on digital asset markets, according to Pillsbury Law’s summary of the January order.

A March fact sheet focused on the establishment of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and a U.S. digital asset stockpile, framing crypto as a strategic asset rather than a speculative corner of markets, according to the White House.

At the SEC, Paul S. Atkins was sworn in as chair in April 2025 and has been associated with a lighter regulatory approach and an emphasis on capital formation, according to the SEC and legal commentary from Armstrong Teasdale. In September, Meg Ryan was appointed enforcement director, a move read by some as a signal of a shift in enforcement posture, according to the Financial Times.

Enforcement was already moving away from the peak pace of the Gensler era. Cornerstone Research counted 46 crypto-related enforcement actions in 2023, the most on record, and 33 in 2024, down roughly 30% year over year.

Across the agency, fiscal 2024 closed with 583 total enforcement actions, down from the prior year, while financial remedies hit a record $8.2 billion, heavily influenced by the Terraform Labs settlement, according to the SEC’s fiscal 2024 enforcement results. The mix has leaned toward fewer cases with large headline penalties tied to earlier conduct, rather than frequent new filings.

Under the new chair, several legacy matters have been narrowed or resolved.

The SEC ended its long-running Ripple case with a $125 million penalty and an injunction limited to institutional sales.

It also closed its investigation into Robinhood’s crypto business without charges. Investopedia reported that the SEC moved to dismiss its lawsuit against Coinbase, which had alleged unregistered exchange activity and staking products.

Placed alongside the 2026 priorities, these outcomes point to a reset where examinations and enforcement converge on a narrower posture, focused on fraud, custody, marketing, AML and operational risk through technology-neutral rules, rather than treating tokens as a separate supervisory lane.

The global crypto market capitalization surpassed $4 trillion in July 2025. Meanwhile, U.S. spot Bitcoin ETFs attracted roughly $35.7 billion in net inflows in 2024, with continued flows for most of 2025.

The investor base for crypto-linked products now spans large asset managers, broker-dealers, and retirement channels that fall directly within the SEC’s examination perimeter. Yet the new priorities guide exam staff toward AI risk, data security, and privacy governance, Regulation S-P incident response, and identity theft controls, not crypto-specific reviews.

Market conditions underline the tension.

Bitcoin has dipped below $90,000, down nearly 30% from its October peak above $126,000, and Ethereum is trading under $3,000.

The broader crypto market shed roughly $1 trillion in six weeks. This is the kind of volatility that can test custody arrangements, liquidity management, and marketing suitability in regulated channels. The exam program is addressing those risks through topic-agnostic lenses, such as complex product oversight, cyber resiliency, and AML, rather than through a crypto label.

Outside the United States, regulators are moving toward sector-specific rulebooks. The EU’s Markets in Crypto-Assets framework is now fully in effect, with stablecoin rules live since June 30, 2024, and the broader regime for crypto-asset service providers applying since December 30, 2024, according to ESMA.

Non-compliant stablecoins faced delistings by March 31, 2025, and analysts project a large euro-area stablecoin market by year’s end, according to Stablecoin Insider. The UK has published a draft statutory instrument to create new regulated activities for crypto assets and opened consultations on trading platforms, intermediation, staking, and DeFi, while considering tighter consumer risk controls.

Hong Kong continues to refine its licensing regime for virtual asset trading platforms and announced a 12-initiative “A-S-P-I-Re” roadmap in 2025, including steps to allow licensed platforms to share global order books with affiliates to boost liquidity. Singapore’s MAS finalized a stablecoin framework in 2023, which took effect in 2024, for single-currency stablecoins pegged to the SGD or G10 currencies.

That divergence sets up three plausible paths for 2026 to 2027.

A baseline outcome is benign neglect, where the SEC keeps crypto out of the exam priorities and processes crypto exposure through custody, AML, cyber and marketing rules, while enforcement activity drifts toward single-digit case counts centered on fraud, consistent with the direction in Cornerstone Research’s tallies.

A realignment outcome would require congressional action on market structure that pushes most spot tokens toward the CFTC and reserves the SEC for tokenized securities and fund shares, after which the exam program could reintroduce a narrow crypto scope limited to securities products.

A snap-back outcome would arise from a high-impact failure, such as a stablecoin breakdown, an exchange incident, or a product-level shock in an ETF complex, which could trigger hearings and a re-insertion of crypto into 2027 or 2028 priorities with new specialist resources.

For centralized exchanges and broker-dealer hybrids, the near-term exam exposure is tilted toward AML, custody, and complex product suitability, as well as the CFTC for derivatives.

For DeFi, the SEC’s omission reinforces that on-chain supervision is not on its near-term exam agenda, while EU, UK, and Hong Kong processes may become the first sources of binding standards.

For stablecoin issuers, MiCA and MAS frameworks are fast becoming reference points for design and compliance, even for U.S. market participants that operate globally. For ETF sponsors and asset managers, the exam program’s attention to complex wrappers, disclosure, best interest obligations, and operational resilience remains in place regardless of the underlying index.

In the end, the SEC’s silence may speak louder than its past crusades, as the shift emphasizes the pivot from reflexive hostility to deliberate restraint.

After years when silence often preceded a subpoena, the new posture suggests something simpler: crypto is no longer the SEC’s special project.

Whether that proves to be overdue normalization or a temporary pause, the center of gravity in U.S. oversight is moving, and this time, not because of what the SEC withholds, but because it’s finally stepping out of the spotlight.