2026 US midterm elections: Democrats did not reverse US crypto policy, they took control of its implementation.

Key takeaways

• Democrats now control Congress, but the current crypto agenda may survive. The GENIUS Act is law, and regulators are formalising crypto rules. What has changed is who decides whether those rules remain in place.
• Democrats now control congressional committees and have the power to issue subpoenas.
• The industry’s biggest election bet failed. It spent tens of millions against Sherrod Brown in Ohio, but he won.
• Businesses such as stablecoin issuers and chartered custodians have more regulatory clarity than DeFi protocols and token issuers, whose regulatory treatment remains largely subject to regulators’ discretion.

On 15 September, the Senate blocked the CLARITY Act, the bill meant to set the rules for US crypto markets. The bill failed to advance, with 49 senators voting in favour and 50 against.

The reasons behind the bill’s failure are particularly relevant in light of the election results. Democrats did not reject crypto rules outright. Two Democratic senators had helped move the bill through committee. The deal collapsed over ethics. Democrats wanted tougher limits on the President’s own crypto businesses, which brought him more than $1.4 billion in 2025.

Then, on 3 November 2026, Democrats won both chambers of Congress. In Ohio, Sherrod Brown won back his Senate seat, despite being a major target of the crypto industry for two consecutive election cycles.

The election has therefore changed who controls US crypto policy, rather than fundamentally altering its direction. The direction of US crypto policymaking had already shifted from Congress to regulators in September. With Democrats now controlling both chambers, the question is whether that regulator-led approach will endure.

The seat count matters less than who holds the gavels, but it sets the scale of the shift.

Figure 1: US Congressional Balance of Power Before and After the 2026 Midterms

Source: AMINA Bank AG, Associated Press, Fox News

Committee chairs decide which bills get a hearing, which officials get questioned and which documents get subpoenaed.

Two lawmakers are particularly relevant here. Elizabeth Warren is expected to chair the Senate Banking Committee, while Maxine Waters is expected to lead the House Financial Services Committee. Both have consistently advocated stricter crypto regulation. Meanwhile, the industry is set to lose a key Republican ally in the Senate, as Cynthia Lummis, who led Republican negotiations on the CLARITY Act, is retiring.

Partly, but not where it counted.

Fairshake, the industry’s main super PAC (Political Action Committee) network, backed winners in 53 of 57 primaries this cycle. That is a strong record.

The problem is where the money went. All 32 House members that backed Fairshake in the general election had already voted for the CLARITY Act. The House passed that bill comfortably in 2025. The industry was paying to keep votes it already had.

The real roadblock was the Senate, and the dispute there was about presidential ethics. Campaign money cannot settle that kind of disagreement.

Ohio displayed those limits. Crypto groups spent around $63 million trying to stop Brown. He won anyway and returns to the Senate with little reason to help the industry.

Figure 2: Crypto-Related Political Expenditure and Electoral Outcomes

Source: AMINA Bank AG, CNBC, Cointelegraph, The Cryptonomist

Market rules. Few are expecting the CLARITY Act to pass before 2029. In the meantime, the SEC and CFTC have begun developing their own regulatory frameworks for crypto markets, although implementation remains several months away.

Stablecoins. Unlike other areas of crypto regulation, stablecoins already have an established legislative framework. The GENIUS Act, passed in 2025, is scheduled to take effect on 18 January 2027, just fifteen days after the new Congress convenes. Democratic lawmakers will therefore could scrutinise licenses issued under the Act and oversee its implementation.

DeFi. Without a market structure law, DeFi developers have no legal protections written into statute. Their position depends on how regulators choose to interpret existing rules, which can change with the next administration.

Banks and institutions. Crypto firms have gained access to banking through federal trust charters rather than new laws. Circle now operates as a national trust bank, and several others have conditional approval. Warren has argued that

Figure 3: US Crypto Regulatory Milestones and Political Transitions

Source: AMINA Bank AG, Office of the Comptroller of the Currency, DLA Piper, FinTech Weekly, The Block, Thomson Reuters, Bitcoin Magazine

1. Not all crypto policies are equally secure. A law is hard to undo. A regulator’s rule may be easier to reverse. A temporary exemption or informal guidance is easier still. Stablecoins sit at the secure end. DeFi and token classification sit at the fragile end. That difference in regulatory footing is likely to matter more over the next two years than any single bill.

2. Ethics is now the price of any crypto bill. Democrats will not pass a market structure law without strict conflict-of-interest rules. The White House says it has already offered enough concessions. Until that dispute is settled, crypto legislation will remain stuck, regardless of its merits.

3. Stablecoins face a timing collision. The GENIUS Act goes live just as Democrats take control of oversight. The first wave of stablecoin licenses will be granted under close scrutiny.

4. Big, regulated players gain an edge. Legal uncertainty weighs far more on protocols and token issuers than on banks, chartered custodians, and compliant stablecoin issuers. Ultimately, regulatory confusion protects established institutions by keeping new competitors out of the market.

5. The Senate’s real power is approving regulators. Blocking or slowing nominations to the SEC and CFTC may shape crypto policy more than any bill Democrats write.

6. Hedging is more likely than an exodus. Political risk is likely to push more crypto firms to hold licenses in the EU, Switzerland, the UAE, Singapore or Hong Kong alongside their US operations, rather than leave the US entirely.

The market reaction was modest. Bitcoin dipped to about $75,600 as results came in, then recovered towards $78,000. Elections rarely drive crypto prices on their own, and the historical pattern is mixed.

Figure 4: Bitcoin and Ethereum Market Performance Around US Midterm Elections

Source: AMINA Bank AG, CryptoQuant, Cointelegraph, DigitalToday, Traders Union

Figure 5: Sector Exposure to the Midterm Result

Source: AMINA Bank AG

For two years, the crypto industry treated Washington as a contest for votes. The 2026 election shows that the real contest is about permanence.

Most of the progress made under the current regime came from regulators, not from Congress. Only the stablecoin law is written into statute. Everything else depends on decisions that a future administration could undo, and that a Democratic Congress can now examine closely.

The open question is no longer whether Washington supports crypto. It is which parts of that support would survive a change of government.

Q. How do the 2026 midterm elections affect Bitcoin?
Direct exposure is limited. Bitcoin’s legal status in the US is not in dispute, and the price reaction to the result was modest. Market conditions, ETF flows and liquidity are likely to matter more. Indirect effects come through slower crypto legislation and closer scrutiny of the exchanges and custodians that serve Bitcoin holders.

Q. Is the CLARITY Act dead?
The bill failed a 49 to 50 Senate vote on 15 September 2026 and must be reintroduced when the new Congress meets in January 2027. With Democrats controlling both chambers, passage of the existing text before 2029 looks unlikely. A narrower bill with stronger ethics rules remains possible.

Q. Can a Democratic Congress repeal the GENIUS Act?
Repeal would need to pass both chambers and survive a presidential veto. Congress can still hold hearings, subpoena regulators and use its funding powers to influence how stablecoin issuers are licensed and supervised once the Act takes effect on 18 January 2027.

Q. Can the SEC and CFTC regulate crypto without new legislation?
Yes. Both agencies began using their existing authority in September 2026. However, rules not backed by specific legislation are easier to reverse or overturn. Both agencies also have commissioner vacancies, and appointments now require approval from a Democratic Senate.

Q. Which crypto sectors are most exposed to the midterm result?
DeFi, exchanges and token issuers are most exposed because their legal and regulatory position depends on how regulators interpret existing rules. Stablecoin issuers and chartered custodians stand on firmer legal ground, though they face more oversight. Bitcoin, mining and ETFs have the lowest direct exposure.

Disclaimer: Research and Educational Content

This document has been prepared by AMINA Bank AG (“AMINA”). AMINA is a Swiss licensed bank and securities dealer with its head office and legal domicile in Switzerland. It is authorised and regulated by the Swiss Financial Market Supervisory Authority (“FINMA”).

This document is published solely for educational purposes; it is not an advertisement nor a solicitation or an offer to buy or sell any financial investment or to participate in any particular investment strategy. This document is for publication only on AMINA website, blog, and AMINA social media accounts as permitted by applicable law. It is not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity who is a citizen or resident of or located in any locality, state, country or other jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or would subject AMINA to any registration or licensing requirement within such jurisdiction.

This document discusses political developments solely for educational purposes. AMINA does not endorse any particular position in this regard and should not be relied upon as political advice or guidance. All statements and scenarios in this regard are illustrative, inherently uncertain, and not guarantees of future outcomes. Past performance is not a reliable indicator of future performance.

AMINA does not endorse, recommend, sponsor, promote any third-party company, product, service or investment referred to in this document, and any reference is made solely for educational and illustrative purposes.

Research will initiate, update and cease coverage solely at the discretion of AMINA. This document is based on various sources, incl. AMINA ones. In preparing this document, AMINA may have made limited use of artificial intelligence-enabled tools to assist with research, summarisation, and drafting, with all content subject to human review and validation.

No representation or warranty, either express or implied, is provided in relation to the accuracy, completeness or reliability of the information contained in this document, except with respect to information concerning AMINA. The information is not intended to be a complete statement or summary of the subjects alluded to in the document, whereas general information, financial investments, markets or developments. AMINA does not undertake to update or keep current information. Any statements contained in this document attributed to a third party represent AMINA’s interpretation of the data, information and/or opinions provided by that third party either publicly or through a subscription service, and such use and interpretation have not been reviewed by the third party.

Any formulas, equations, or prices stated in this document are for informational or explanatory purposes only and do not represent valuations for individual investments. There is no representation that any transaction can or could have been affected at those formulas, equations, or prices, and any formula(s), equation(s), or price(s) do not necessarily reflect AMINA’s internal books and records or theoretical model-based valuations and may be based on certain assumptions. Different assumptions by AMINA or any other source may yield substantially different results.

Nothing in this document constitutes a representation that any investment strategy or investment is suitable or appropriate to an investor’s individual circumstances or otherwise constitutes a personal recommendation. Investments involve risks, and investors should exercise prudence and their own judgment in making their investment decisions. Financial investments described in the document may not be eligible for sale in all jurisdictions or to certain categories of investors. Certain services and products are subject to legal restrictions and cannot be offered on an unrestricted basis to certain investors. Recipients are therefore asked to consult the restrictions relating to investments, products or services for further information. Furthermore, recipients may consult their legal/tax advisors should they require any clarifications.

At any time, investment decisions (including, among others, deposit, buy, sell or hold investments) made by AMINA and its employees may differ from or be contrary to the opinions expressed in AMINA research publications.

This document may not be reproduced, or copies circulated without prior authority of AMINA. Unless otherwise agreed in writing, AMINA expressly prohibits the distribution and transfer of this document to third parties for any reason. AMINA accepts no liability whatsoever for any claims or lawsuits from any third parties arising from the use or distribution of this document.

©2026 AMINA, Kolinplatz 15, 6300 Zug