Is there a program hidden behind these new laws on cryptography?

The recent cryptography laws have sparked a debate on their true political motivations. The law on engineering, signed on July 18, 2025, represents the cornerstone of the administration’s cryptocurrency strategy.

Officially, the initiative aims to eliminate excessive administrative barriers and to legalize the stablecoins – cryptographic active ingredients supported by real American active assets: dollars, bonds of treasury or gold.

According to legislators, these documents should simplify transactions and position the United States as a world leader in digital finance. The administration has supervised this legislation as part of a complete strategy to improve financial innovation while maintaining America’s economic leadership.

Understanding the laws on cryptocurrencies in the United States requires looking beyond official stories. The StableCoin market, currently estimated at more than $ 260 billion, is expected to reach 2 dollars by 2028 as part of this new regulatory framework. This explosive growth will fundamentally modify the financial landscape so as not to align with the objectives set out.

Related: hidden problems that could threaten the future of cryptography

Who regulates crypto in the United States?

The question of knowing that regulates cryptocurrency in the United States becomes complex under new legislation. The agenda hidden behind these laws seems to weaken control of the federal reserve system. As a reminder, the Fed, created in 1913, consists of twelve regional reserve banks and is considered a private structure independent of the executive power.

The prerogative of the issue of “national money” is firmly guaranteed by the Fed, and attempts to interfere with its powers have invariably encountered strong opposition. Understand who regulates cryptocurrency in the United States reveals the political power struggle behind recent laws.

The new Stablecoin law represents half a measure because it cannot resolve the task of creating a digital central bank alternative. Instead, it allows private actors to issue their own “money” supported by government titles, actually fragmenting the Fed monopoly on emissions.

Read more: people really only care about these 3 things at work – do you offer them?

The influence of ecupille as a tool of political influence

The regulation of new stablescoin enables private entities to issue assets such as money supported by government securities. This represents an important gap in traditional monetary policy, where the issue of currencies is closely controlled by the central banking authorities.

The approach to the settlement of stablescoin can fragment the monopoly of the federal reserve on the program issue. By allowing private entities to create digital assets supported in dollars, legislation actually creates a parallel monetary system that operates under different rules and surveillance.

Critics argue that the current stable regulations could create a shadow emission system outside traditional controls. This system could potentially undermine the Fed’s ability to effectively implement monetary policy and respond to economic crises.

Related: why institutional investors adopt crypto-tradfi partnerships

The political agenda stimulating recent legislation

The political agenda of cryptocurrency behind recent legislation extends beyond the promotion of innovation. Consequently, the American economic system risks losing part of its budgetary income and deviating from its usual course. Companies, having received the right to issue and use stablecoins, can start to escape tax control and the stalls themselves, under unfavorable regulations, will depreciate and lose confidence.

To understand politics around crypto, you have to look at power struggles between government institutions. The impression of hidden money creates slower growth and trembling forecasts, which is risky in an electoral year when the political pressure is already high.

Some in cryptographic space even pressure to reduce control of the federal reserve on monetary policy – a major change in the financial system that has shaped the United States for more than 100 years.

The potential consequences of these laws on hidden agenda include:

• Loss of budgetary income: Reduction of the tax collection of cryptocurrency transactions compared to traditional financial operations.
• Fragmentation of monetary policy: Several entities issuing supported dollars could complicate coordinated monetary policy.
• Risks of financial stability: A parallel financial system with different rules could introduce new systemic risks.
• Political power changes: Reduction of the independence of the federal reserve and increased influence of executive branches on monetary policy.
• Economic uncertainty: Market volatile potential and reduced predictability during political transitions.

Analysts wonder if Trump’s Crypto companies are designed to weaken control of the federal reserve. The legislation creates a framework where private entities can emit supported assets in dollars with surveillance potentially less than traditional banking institutions.

The Trump administration has designed its cryptocurrency laws as prospective reforms designed to position the United States as a leader in digital finance. But under this story is a more complex political program. The legislation could reduce the influence of the federal reserve on monetary policy, to introduce alternative instruments such as money with favorable tax treatment and change power among the main financial institutions.

Related: this billion dollars industry is the place where you have to search for your next investment – here is why

The complete impact will only become clear over time. What is certain is that the effects will extend far beyond the markets of cryptocurrencies, with the potential to reshape the fundamental elements of the American financial and political order. The central question is whether these changes will strengthen or weaken the economic stability of the United States and world leadership. Understanding the implications requires looking at the official accounts passed to the dynamics of the changing power they hide – it is only then that we can judge whether the reforms serve the political objectives of the good or the narrowest.