Senators Question Selig on Cryptocurrency Oversight, Betting Market Risks

On November 19, 2025, U.S. senators subjected Michael Selig, President Donald Trump’s nominee to chair the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, to intense questioning about the future of crypto regulation and the rapidly expanding market for betting on political events. Selig, a lawyer who has advised Securities and Exchange Commission officials and administration policymakers on digital asset issues, faced scrutiny over how he would reconcile industry innovation with consumer protection and market integrity.

The hearing highlighted a cleft in U.S. financial regulation that has taken on greater urgency as crypto platforms, stablecoin issuers and derivatives desks expand. Lawmakers focused on whether the CFTC under Selig would assert broader authority over crypto markets traditionally contested by the SEC, and how that choice would affect enforcement priorities, trading venues and product design. Shifting oversight from a securities framework to a commodities framework could change registration requirements, disclosure obligations and civil enforcement strategies.

Senators from both parties probed the implications for market integrity and systemic risk. They raised concerns about the resilience of stablecoins as payments infrastructure, and about the potential for price manipulation in fringe sectors such as betting markets tied to elections and geopolitical events. Those markets, some of which operate on platforms based abroad, raise complex questions about jurisdiction, cross border enforcement and how U.S. law intersects with the regulatory approaches of allies and trading partners.

The hearing also underscored the immediate operational stakes at the CFTC. The agency has been operating without a permanent chair for months, complicating long term rule making and international engagement at a moment when global counterparts are moving quickly. Selig’s confirmation would fill that leadership vacuum and shape how the United States coordinated with the European Union, the United Kingdom and Asian regulators on issues ranging from derivatives clearing to anti money laundering.

Observers noted that divergent regulatory philosophies carry geopolitical consequences. A CFTC led approach might favor derivatives based solutions and promote bilateral agreements with foreign commodities regulators, while a securities led regime could emphasize investor disclosures and potentially restrict some token structures. Those choices influence where trading activity concentrates, how exchanges structure products and how multinational firms allocate compliance resources.

Cross border cooperation emerged as a central theme. Senators asked how the CFTC would engage with foreign supervisors to stem illicit finance and ensure customer protections while allowing legitimate innovation to flourish. That balancing act matters not only for U.S. investors but for smaller jurisdictions that have become hubs for crypto firms and betting platforms seeking favorable rules.

The hearing closed without immediate indication of a confirmation timeline, but it made clear that senators expect a nominee who can articulate a resilient regulatory framework that navigates domestic statutory boundaries and international norms. As policymakers worldwide watch the U.S. posture on digital assets and event betting, the outcome at the CFTC will be consequential for market structure, enforcement dynamics and transnational regulatory cooperation.