Paul Atkins was sworn in as the 34th SEC chairman on April 21, 2025, following Senate confirmation on April 9. He inherited an agency that had spent the prior administration aggressively pursuing crypto firms, often through enforcement actions rather than formal rulemaking.

What Atkins is actually changing

In a speech delivered on March 19, 2026, Atkins formally directed the SEC’s Enforcement Division to recalibrate its priorities. The shift is straightforward on paper: deprioritize cases built around technical rule violations and redirect resources toward fraud, market manipulation, and conduct that causes demonstrable harm to investors.

Atkins had telegraphed this direction early. At an internal town hall on May 6, 2025, just weeks after taking office, he told staff that investor protection is the cornerstone of the SEC’s mission.

The new enforcement framework also places renewed emphasis on individual accountability, meaning the SEC under Atkins is more likely to pursue the executives responsible for misconduct rather than settling with corporate entities that absorb fines as a cost of doing business.

The crypto angle everyone is watching

The piece of Atkins’ agenda drawing the most attention in crypto circles is something called Project Crypto, an initiative designed to provide the market with clearer criteria for how digital assets get classified under existing securities law.

The SEC is also planning a so-called token taxonomy, a framework that would apply the Howey test, the legal standard used to determine whether something qualifies as a security, in a more structured and predictable way to digital assets.

The previous enforcement-first approach essentially meant companies learned the rules by getting sued. Atkins is betting that proactive rulemaking, telling the industry what the rules are before enforcement begins, is both fairer and more effective at protecting investors over the long run.

What this means for markets and investors

Critics of the strategy argue that some technical violations exist precisely because they are leading indicators of larger problems. A company that repeatedly misses disclosure requirements may not have harmed investors yet, but the pattern matters.