Federal Regulatory Agencies
Federal Regulatory Agencies
Here's a look at documents from federal regulatory agencies
Featured Stories
FTC Chairman Ferguson Advises Companies to Comply with the Take It Down Act
WASHINGTON, May 11 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:* * *
FTC Chairman Ferguson Advises Companies to Comply with the Take It Down Act
*
Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent letters today to more than a dozen prominent technology companies reminding businesses of their obligation to comply fully with the Take It Down Act (TIDA) no later than May 19. Signed into law last year by President Donald J. Trump with the strong support of First Lady Melania Trump, TIDA requires covered platforms to establish a process allowing victims, including ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 11 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release: * * * FTC Chairman Ferguson Advises Companies to Comply with the Take It Down Act * Federal Trade Commission Chairman Andrew N. Ferguson sent letters today to more than a dozen prominent technology companies reminding businesses of their obligation to comply fully with the Take It Down Act (TIDA) no later than May 19. Signed into law last year by President Donald J. Trump with the strong support of First Lady Melania Trump, TIDA requires covered platforms to establish a process allowing victims, includingchildren, to request removal of intimate photos or videos shared without their consent.
The letters were sent to major platforms, including Amazon, Alphabet, Apple, Automattic, Bumble, Discord, Match Group, Meta, Microsoft, Pinterest, Reddit, SmugMug, Snapchat, TikTok and X. The letters state the definitions and requirements of the law, along with the penalties for non-compliance.
"We stand ready to monitor compliance, investigate violations, and enforce the Take It Down Act," said Chairman Ferguson. "Protecting the vulnerable-especially children-from this harmful abuse is a top priority for this agency and this administration. The Trump-Vance FTC is grateful for the First Lady's leadership on the Take It Down Act and on children's issues."
The letter specifies that covered platforms must provide clear and conspicuous notice about the removal process. They must also take down the nonconsensual images, and all identical copies, within 48 hours of receiving a valid request. Under the law, "covered platforms" include various websites, apps and online services, such as social media, messaging, image or video sharing and gaming platforms. The FTC also has issued guidance about what companies should do as they prepare to comply with TIDA.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/05/ftc-chairman-ferguson-advises-companies-comply-take-it-down-act
FTC and Illinois Take Action to Stop Deceptive Conduct by Company that Created Thousands of Business Listings of Fake Local Home Repair Businesses
WASHINGTON, May 11 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release:* * *
FTC and Illinois Take Action to Stop Deceptive Conduct by Company that Created Thousands of Business Listings of Fake Local Home Repair Businesses
*
The U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, and the state of Illinois sued Chicago-based company Premium Home Service (PHS) and its owner for fraudulently creating thousands of fake online business listings for home repair companies to deceive consumers into thinking they were choosing reputable local companies for home repairs. ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 11 -- The Federal Trade Commission issued the following news release: * * * FTC and Illinois Take Action to Stop Deceptive Conduct by Company that Created Thousands of Business Listings of Fake Local Home Repair Businesses * The U.S. Department of Justice, on behalf of the Federal Trade Commission, and the state of Illinois sued Chicago-based company Premium Home Service (PHS) and its owner for fraudulently creating thousands of fake online business listings for home repair companies to deceive consumers into thinking they were choosing reputable local companies for home repairs.
The complaint also alleges that PHS and its CEO and owner Yosef Bernath posted fabricated five-star reviews that appeared to be from customers of the fake companies. PHS used these made-up five-star reviews to dilute legitimate one-star reviews from actual customers, artificially boosting the overall ratings of the listed companies.
"Premium Home Service's use of fake business profiles and reviews violates federal and state laws, harming consumers and businesses," said Christopher Mufarrige, Director of the FTC's Bureau of Consumer Protection. "The Trump-Vance FTC is committed to addressing deceptive conduct that harms the American people and undermines competition."
Since at least 2018, Illinois-based B.E.S.T. GDR LLC, which does business as PHS, has operated around the country using scores of fabricated company names, according to the complaint.
The complaint alleges that PHS pretends to operate as an established brick-and-mortar company located near where consumers live. To market its services, PHS has created thousands of online business profiles for non-existent home-repair companies, which are typically not registered with the state. The local addresses in these profiles belong to unrelated third parties or are made up, according to the complaint.
Tens of thousands of consumers searching for local home repair service companies have been diverted to the defendants' business profiles, which include common keywords used to search for such services, including "electrical services," "plumbing," "heating and cooling" and "garage door repair," the complaint alleges. Consumers who reach the defendants' business profiles allegedly see fabricated five-star reviews and ratings designed to encourage them to select that company for service.
According to the complaint, consumers who try to call local phone numbers for local businesses are instead routed to representatives located elsewhere, including in the Philippines. These representatives typically tell consumers a "technician" can be dispatched to their address within a particular window of time. Often, however, the representatives do not know whether any technician is available and, in many cases, no one shows up at the consumers' homes. In other cases, PHS arranges for technicians who are not licensed or qualified to perform the job, resulting in subpar-and at times dangerous-work.
Based on this conduct, the complaint alleges that the defendants violated:
* the FTC Act by making deceptive claims about being a local home-repair business operating from a specific address, making deceptive claims about sending technicians on a specific date and time from a local business, and making deceptive claims related to fake reviews;
* the Reviews and Testimonials Rule by writing, creating, buying, or selling fake reviews and seeking and using fake reviews from employees and relatives; and
* the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act by making false, fictitious, or fraudulent statements to obtain consumers' financial information.
The complaint also alleges PHS violated Illinois consumer protection laws.
The Commission vote to refer the civil penalty complaint to the Department of Justice for filing was 2-0. The Department of Justice filed the complaint on behalf of the Commission in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Commissioner Mark R. Meador issued a statement on this matter.
The Commission staff on this matter are William J. Hodor and Karen D. Dodge in the FTC's Midwest Region.
***
Original text here: https://www.ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2026/05/ftc-illinois-take-action-stop-deceptive-conduct-company-created-thousands-business-listings-fake
SEC Chairman Atkins Issues Remarks at the Conference on Financial Market Regulation
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on May 8, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Markets Regulation:* * *
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And thank you, Josh [White], for your generous introduction. Before sharing a few reflections, I must note that the views I express here are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEC as an institution or of my fellow Commissioners.
Of course, I should also like to thank those who contributed to the success of this conference--especially ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on May 8, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Markets Regulation: * * * Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. And thank you, Josh [White], for your generous introduction. Before sharing a few reflections, I must note that the views I express here are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEC as an institution or of my fellow Commissioners. Of course, I should also like to thank those who contributed to the success of this conference--especiallythe organizers: Amy Edwards, Vlad Ivanov, Katie Fox, Harmony Yang, and Robert Miller from the Division of Economic and Risk Analysis; Meg Wolf and Kathleen Hanley from Lehigh University; and Ian Appel and Caitlin Boyer from the University of Virginia.
Your work to bring together scholars, researchers, and practitioners comes at a consequential moment for the Commission--and for the broader financial system--a moment in which economic analysis is more central than ever to the conduct and durability of sound financial regulation.
You all know better than most that the quality of our work is only as high as the rigor of our inquiry. This rings true in our rulemaking, of course, but no less in the integrity of our enforcement program--especially as we work to return it to its principled roots and original Congressional intent.
The mission that Congress set for the SEC is clear: to protect investors; maintain fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitate capital formation. Yet often over the years, the agency's enforcement program drifted from that missional anchor. The Commission began wielding enforcement more like a sledgehammer than a scalpel--not to remedy demonstrable harm with precision, but to signal regulatory displeasure and expand agency jurisdiction.
Over the past year, however, we have recalibrated that approach. We have empowered the talented, hardworking enforcement staff to pursue cases that provide meaningful investor protection and strengthen market integrity--cases grounded in fact and careful analysis, in principle rather than in personal preference and regulation through enforcement. Today, we no longer measure the success of our program by the quantity of enforcement actions or the headlines that they generate, but by the quality and credibility of the actions that we take. And with our new Enforcement Director David Woodcock at the helm, I am confident that his decades of enforcement experience--in both public service and the private sector--will position him and the staff well to effectively carry this mission forward.
At the crux of the course correction that we have undertaken rests methodical economic analysis. Economic scrutiny is not merely a best practice or an optional procedure when considering the appropriate corporate penalties in an enforcement action--though some past Commissions have treated it as such; rather, it is a principled imperative. By looking through the lens of economic evidence, we can assess a corporation's benefit from a violation of the federal securities laws and ensure that the penalties are proportionate to the conduct at issue.
Economic analysis is also crucial to understanding whether or not a violation of the federal securities laws occurred for certain types of cases, and the scope of that violation--for example, in preferential allocation or "cherry-picking" cases. And even after an enforcement case is complete, high-caliber economic analysis is critical to determining how to distribute recovered funds to harmed investors accurately, transparently, and fairly.
In short, just as the Commission evaluates proposed rules through rigorous economic inquiry, often drawing on the data that researchers in this room provide, so too must our enforcement work be grounded in--and commensurate with--the economic evidence at hand.
I expect that our economists at the SEC should play a vital role in helping our enforcement staff separate the wheat from the chaff through sound analysis and factual research. Fraud, manipulation, and trading on material non-public information cause real harm to real people, and we will pursue those cases with vigor. But we will do so with the discipline and analytical diligence that the gravity of enforcement demands.
The Commission could not keep that commitment without the caliber of talent gathered across this room. Academic research is indispensable in helping us identify the costs, benefits, and unintended consequences of regulatory decisions--both retrospectively and prospectively. The dedicated work done by those assembled here and in institutions across the country gives us the empirical foundation upon which sound regulatory policy and sensible law enforcement must be built.
When the Commission acts without that foundation, it risks the very outcomes that it seeks to prevent--markets that are less fair, less efficient, and less capable of serving the investors and innovators who depend on them.
Indeed, we value the research that you do. And I say that not as a pleasantry, but as a proclamation of institutional commitment. The Division of Economic and Risk Analysis exists precisely to ensure that the insights that you generate are considered in the decisions that we make. I intend to continue to strengthen that function--not to diminish it.
My comments at last year's conference endure in relevance: that regulation is a bit like golf.[1] It requires careful, precise strokes and meticulous analysis of shot selection to achieve the intended result. If you choose the wrong club, or swing too hard, you risk overshooting the green. In the end, it is the short game--precision, patience, discipline--that most reliably sinks the ball in the hole.
The Commission's integrity--and the strength of our capital markets--depends on our willingness to pursue precise analytical work before we act, and to continuously reevaluate that work as we move forward. It depends on our confidence in what we do know, and our inquiry into what we do not. And it depends on our commitment to letting the evidence, rather than the impulse to regulate or enforce, guide our hand.
At the SEC, economic rigor has an abiding place at the table of regulatory decisions. Policy is no longer set by ad hoc enforcement actions. And, with your engagement, we will police the market by prioritizing cases that further our investor protection goals rather than by amplifying technical rule violations to achieve a policy goal.
Now, let me close where I began--with the consequential moment in which we meet. Today, the relationship between the federal government and the capital markets that the Commission oversees is being renegotiated in real time--not in seminar rooms alone, but in courtrooms, on trading floors, and in the corridors of this Commission. The work that you do matters beyond productive discussions like today's. It matters to the investors who trust that the market that they participate in is honest, and to the entrepreneurs who trust that the risk of innovation can prove worth it in a system that seeks to reward it. Economic analysis is not removed from those realities. It is, at its best, the lantern by which we navigate them.
So, thank you for the work that you do toward that end. You have been a patient and indulgent audience, and I wish you a successful and enjoyable remainder of your conference. Thank you.
* * *
[1] See Paul Atkins, Remarks Before the Securities Traders Association (Oct. 7, 2004), available at https://www.sec.gov/news/speech/spch100704psa.htm.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-remarks-conference-financial-market-regulation-050826
FEC Issues Digest for Week of May 4-8, 2026
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest:* * *
Commission meetings and hearings
No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week.
* * *
Litigation
Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 25-4072) On May 5, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Federal Election Commission and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 25-4559) On May 5, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Federal Election Commission issued the following weekly digest: * * * Commission meetings and hearings No open meetings or executive sessions were scheduled this week. * * * Litigation Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 25-4072) On May 5, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default Judgment Against Defendant Federal Election Commission and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Bernegger v. FEC (Case No. 25-4559) On May 5, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Default JudgmentAgainst Defendant Federal Election Commission and a Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support of Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Campaign Legal Center v. FEC (Case No. 26-1559) On May 6, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, challenging the Commission's approval of Advisory Opinion 2024-01 (Texas Majority PAC) as contrary to the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, as amended (the Act).
CREW v. FEC (Case No. 25-4116) On May 1, the parties filed a Stipulation of Dismissal in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the court issued a Minute Order directing the Clerk of Court to terminate the case.
Esrati v. FEC (Case No. 26-1498) On April 30, Plaintiff filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
Lacy, et al. v. FEC (Case No. 25-1808) On May 1, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia issued a Minute Order staying this case pending further order of the District Court to await the issuance of an opinion by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in End Citizens United PAC v. FEC (Case No. 22-5277).
McDonald v. FEC (Case No. 25-10830) On May 4, the Commission filed a Response to Petition for Rehearing En Banc in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
* * *
Reports Due in 2026
The Commission has posted the 2026 Congressional Pre-Election Reporting Dates. Reporting schedules for all filers in 2026 are also available.
* * *
Election Dates
The Commission has posted a list of 2026 Congressional Primary Dates.
Employment opportunities
The Commission is accepting applications for the position of Human Resources Specialist through May 15, 2026.
* * *
Upcoming educational opportunities
May 12-13, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host a webinar for membership and labor organizations and their PACs.
June 2-3, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host a webinar for trade associations and their PACs.
June 17, 2026: The Commission is scheduled to host an Advanced FECFile for Candidate Committees webinar.
For more information on upcoming training opportunities, see the Commission's Trainings page.
* * *
Upcoming reporting due dates
May 20: May Monthly Reports are due. For more information, see the 2026 Monthly Reporting schedule.
The Commission has posted information regarding Louisiana's suspension of its primary elections for the U.S. House of Representatives, originally scheduled for May 16, 2026. The Governor's order postpones those elections until July 15, 2026, or until a time designated by the Louisiana Legislature. The Commission will provide additional guidance to committees and filers as it is available regarding Pre-Primary filing deadlines in connection with these elections.
The Commission has posted filing information regarding the California 1st District Special General Election, scheduled for June 2, 2026, and Special Runoff Election (if necessary), scheduled for August 4, 2026.
The Commission has posted filing information regarding the California 14th District Special General Election, scheduled for June 16, 2026, and Special Runoff Election (if necessary), scheduled for August 18, 2026.
* * *
Additional research materials
Contribution Limits: In addition to the current limits, the Commission has posted an archive of contribution limits that were in effect going back to the 1975-1976 election cycles.
Federal election results are available. The data was compiled from the official vote totals published by state election offices.
FEC Notify: Want to be notified by email when campaign finance reports are received by the agency? Sign up here.
The Combined Federal State Disclosure and Election Directory is available. This publication identifies the federal and state agencies responsible for the disclosure of campaign finances, lobbying, personal finances, public financing, candidates on the ballot, election results, spending on state initiatives, and other financial filings.
The Presidential Election Campaign Fund Tax Checkoff Chart provides information on balance of the Fund, monthly deposits into the Fund reported by the Department of the Treasury, payments from the Fund as certified by the FEC, and participation rates of taxpayers as reported by the Internal Revenue Service. For more information on the Presidential Public Funding Program, see the Public Funding of Presidential Elections page.
The FEC Record is available as a continuously updated online news source.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.fec.gov/updates/week-of-may-4-8-2026/
SEC Commissioner Peirce Issues Remarks at the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Markets Regulation
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on May 8, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce at the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Markets Regulation:* * *
Dad Jokes: Remarks at the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Markets Regulation
I am delighted to be part of the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Markets Regulation and Josh White's first as director of the SEC's Division of Economic and Risk Analysis ("DERA"). Thank you to DERA and the conference's other hosts: Lehigh University's Center for Financial Services and the University of Virginia's ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on May 8, 2026, by Commissioner Hester M. Peirce at the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Markets Regulation: * * * Dad Jokes: Remarks at the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Markets Regulation I am delighted to be part of the 13th Annual Conference on Financial Markets Regulation and Josh White's first as director of the SEC's Division of Economic and Risk Analysis ("DERA"). Thank you to DERA and the conference's other hosts: Lehigh University's Center for Financial Services and the University of Virginia'sDarden School of Business. As you know, my comments are my own as a Commissioner and not necessarily those of the SEC or my fellow Commissioners.
That disclaimer is especially applicable to jokes, which is how I prefer to begin speeches to economists--a habit for which my father undoubtedly is to blame. My Dad is an old-school economist; he combines a deep interest in everything--history, political economy, law, theology, engineering, sociology, natural sciences, poetry, and more--with an encyclopedic knowledge of economic theory and the history of economic thought, a profound understanding of how economic principles operate in the real world, and an erudite sense of humor. My joke is not erudite or even particularly funny, but it may be timely. What do economists, regulators, and prediction markets traders have in common and not have in common? They are all unduly confident that they can forecast truth, but only the first two get compensated for their bad forecasts.
Speaking of prediction markets, if someone had asked me in 2018 at the start of my tenure as a Commissioner to predict which market would be dominating the headlines in 2026, the prediction market would not have been it. By 2018, the Iowa Electronic Markets, a nonprofit predictions market run out of the University of Iowa, had existed for three decades,[1] but I did not see commercial prediction markets on the horizon.
In 2022, when the Commission proposed extensive climate reporting rules, I predicted that were such a regime adopted, "the demand for widespread access to prediction markets in the United States [would] likely . . . rise."[2] I thought that the disclosure requirements under that rule would force firms to make guesses about future climate policy, and that they might find prediction markets helpful in making better guesses. Oh, how things have changed! Commercial prediction markets have taken off (albeit not the ones I anticipated) and show no sign of slowing down. And the SEC is proposing to rescind the climate rules--a fact that showed up several days ago on the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs ("OIRA") dashboard, the website that Washington lobbyists visit as often as college fraternity brothers hit up sports prediction markets.[3]
The fascination with trading is not limited to prediction markets. The options market, a favorite of many retail investors, has expanded dramatically in recent years. As the number of options proliferates, message volumes jumped from 9 billion a day in 2017 to 247 billion a day in 2025.[4] Trading in options on expiration day ("Zero-Day-to-Expiration" or "0DTE"), the topic of one of yesterday's papers,[5] has increased from approximately 20 percent in 2022 to 28 percent of volume today, and largely driven by retail traders.[6] A paper being discussed this afternoon concludes that retail investors also enthusiastically trade in active exchange-traded funds ("ETFs"), to "chas[e] extreme performance, in either direction, over short-term horizons."[7] And, of course, retail investor participation in equity markets remains high well after the end of the COVID lockdowns and relief payments that first inspired many retail traders to download trading apps.[8] Retail investors like trading all of these asset classes and more, including crypto, gold, silver, and perpetual futures. Many of these assets are not securities, but they are finding their way into ETFs as well. Well-designed user interfaces make trading fun and easy. And AI bots are awake and eager to trade for us when we sleep. Old products and new fads combine in a dizzying melee intermediated by new technologies, and an enthusiastic class of retail traders with access to sophisticated trading tools rubs elbows with institutional investors scouring social media for clues of where the market is heading.
All that trading, all those new products, all those types of traders, and all that innovation in infrastructure create endless opportunities for people like you who study markets for a living. The trading generates lots of market data, which I know you all love. You can compare products and look at changes over time. You can study whether entertainment trading markets serve as a gateway for retail investors into more traditional investing markets. You can observe interactions among different groups of market participants. The co-existence of similar products in different regulatory wrappers cries out to you for academic inquiry. You can study how integrating new technologies into traditional markets will influence market dynamics. With zero commissions, you can even afford to engage in large-scale trading of your own as part of your research. Modern markets offer a cornucopia for the academic crowd to feast upon.
But what is a regulator to make of these markets with their staggering trading volumes, complicated technologies accessible through simple-to-use interfaces, and ever-growing list of products--many of which look like they belong in the sports, entertainment, politics, or bizarre-story-of-the-day sections of the newspaper rather than in the dry financial pages?
Before drawing any conclusions or taking any actions, regulators need to understand what is happening in today's markets. To this end, the many conversations I and my colleagues have with market participants are essential. Conferences like this one and last month's options roundtable[9] also give us important insights. I appreciate that this conference is addressing timely issues, such as after-hours trading, fund voting, where money is flowing and why, and investor-driven conflicts in ratings. I urge all of you to continue researching, and providing us your insights about, what is happening in the markets and why.
We also need to draw on expertise from outside the agency to determine whether a regulatory response is needed and, if so, what that response should be. Here too, interactions with the public and conferences like this one are helpful. I appreciate that during this conference you are considering issues such as SEC enforcement, crypto regulation, and the conflict between the goals of banking and securities regulation. These discussions are helpful to regulators like me as we think about whether and how to use our regulatory tools.
Bound as we appropriately are by statutory limits on our jurisdiction, the SEC may not be able to solve the problems you identify or adopt the solutions you recommend. The jurisdictional lines Congress set out in governing statutes determine whether and how regulators can react to new products or new technologies. No matter how egregious the facts, for example, the SEC cannot pursue fraud of any type without a cause of action grounded in the securities law. As another example, if a new ETF's sponsor adheres to the rules, gets its disclosures right, and finds an exchange to list it, the SEC cannot block the ETF from going to market.
Even when we have authority to act in response to new market developments, we should be careful because regulations often impose heavy and persistent costs. Complying with regulatory mandates eats up hours and dollars that could be devoted to other purposes, and even well-crafted regulations are frustratingly inflexible in the face of changing circumstances. Less often measured but even more important, regulations deprive people of choice. Regulations uniquely constrain human action by subjecting a person who does not comply to civil and potentially criminal consequences. Moreover, market participants, who face the consequences of their bad decisions, generally are better informed about the facts on the ground than a regulator, even a regulator who has consulted smart academics and powerful datasets.
The proper regulatory response, therefore, to the phenomena we are seeing in today's markets may be quite muted. Don't expect to see a flurry of prescriptive rulemakings. However, regulatory restraint grounded in the law coupled with a healthy dose of deference to the market is not a regulatory seal of approval of any particular product or activity. To the contrary, the fact that we do not screen products for merit means that people should read absolutely nothing about what the SEC or anyone who works here thinks about a product's usefulness or longevity from the fact that it has gone live on SEC-regulated markets. Likewise, the fact that we do not dictate what, whether, or how often retail investors can trade (except in private securities markets which are subject to the paternalistic accredited investor rules) does not mean the SEC blesses any particular trading or investment strategy.
Re-upping my disclaimer that I am not speaking for the rest of the Commission, I do not celebrate everything that is going on in the markets now. Financial products that fan a momentary hope of great riches in the same way lottery tickets do are dull and uninteresting to me. I expect that some of these novelties will fade away as investors lose interest, and their legal, technological, and market infrastructure will be repurposed for more durable investment and risk management products.
The financial markets innovations that give me an adrenaline rush are those that help capital markets fulfill their core objective of serving investors, entrepreneurs, growing companies, the economy, and society at large. I love seeing new products and services that enable people to build resilient investment portfolios to provide security for them and their families. Another favorite is innovative products and services that make it easy and fun for retail investors to understand their investments and the associated expenses. I welcome market developments that facilitate the matching of people with great ideas and promising companies with investors--including people who come from different backgrounds, geographies, and social circles than the entrepreneurs. I champion innovations that enable investors to buy or sell when they want to with low transaction costs. These aspects of the capital markets drew me to this job and remain the ones that inspire me still to be here eight years later.
I suspect that a similar belief in the magnificent power of the capital markets to transform people's lives for the better motivates your academic work. I encourage you, in addition to studying particular facets of the market, to think bigger. Studying trading in a particular asset class or the effect of an existing regulation on a certain market practice is useful. But we all can get distracted by the latest shiny objects driving trading volumes. Sometimes, it helps to step back and rekindle our appreciation for the markets. The heavily quantitative analyses of modern economics are impressive, but old school economists like my father also asked the conceptual questions: how can we make sure the economy is empowering as many people as possible to make the greatest use of their talents in service of society and rewarding them for doing so? These questions go to the heart of the matter, and I invite you to join me in that inquiry.
Let me close with one more joke: How many financial economists does it take to screw in a lightbulb? None, because their work sheds a brilliant light of its own. May your lights shine brightly in today's coming discussions.
* * *
[1]See Iowa Electronic Markets, What is the IEM, https://iemweb.biz.uiowa.edu/about-iem/what-is-the-iem/ (last visited May 8, 2026).
[2] Commissioner Hester M. Peirce, We are Not the Securities and Environment Commission - At Least Not Yet (March 21, 2022), https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-climate-disclosure-20220321, at note 37.
[3] Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Regulatory Actions Currently Under Review by Agency, https://www.reginfo.gov/public/jsp/EO/eoDashboard.myjsp (last visited May 8, 2026).
[4]See Roundtable on Options Market Structure Supporting Data, https://www.sec.gov/files/roundtable-options-market-structure.pdf at 3 ("Supporting Data").
[5]See Jonathan Brogaard, Jaehee Han & Peter Y. Won, Does 0DTE Options Trading Increase Volatility? (Apr. 26, 2023), https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/Papers.cfm?abstract_id=4426358.
[6] Supporting Data at 22-23.
[7]See Da Huang, Vasudha Nair, & Christopher Schwarz, Active ETFs as Attention Assets: Retail Trading Meets Managed Funds (Sep. 10, 2025), FEB-RN Research Paper No. 134/2025, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=5426275 at 1.
[8] See, e.g., J.P. Morgan: Making Sense Podcast, How are Retail Investor Dynamics Shaping Equity Markets? (Apr. 29, 2026), https://www.jpmorgan.com/insights/podcast-hub/making-sense/retail-investor-dynamics-shaping-equity-markets ("[O]ne constant throughout this year, and in fact, throughout the last five or six years, has been the presence of the retail investor still making up around 20% of volumes in U.S. markets and even greater shares of volumes in much of Asia.").
[9] Options Market Structure Roundtable, https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/meetings-events/options-market-structure-roundtable (last visited May 8, 2026).
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/peirce-statement-dera-cfmr-2026-remarks-05-08-2026-dad-jokes-remarks-13th-annual-conference-financial-markets-regulation
FCC Media Bureau Announces Filing of Petition For Declaratory Ruling By Connoisseur Media Holdco
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following public notice (MB Docket No. 26-109) on May 8, 2026:* * *
Connoisseur Media Holdco, Inc. (CM Holdco or Petitioner) has filed a petition for declaratory ruling (Amended Petition)/1 requesting that the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) find, pursuant to section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Act)/2 and section 1.5000(a)(1) of the Commission's rules (Rules),/3 that it would serve the public interest to allow CM Holdco to exceed the 25% benchmarks set forth in section ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Federal Communications Commission's Media Bureau issued the following public notice (MB Docket No. 26-109) on May 8, 2026: * * * Connoisseur Media Holdco, Inc. (CM Holdco or Petitioner) has filed a petition for declaratory ruling (Amended Petition)/1 requesting that the Federal Communications Commission (Commission) find, pursuant to section 310(b)(4) of the Communications Act of 1934, as amended, (Act)/2 and section 1.5000(a)(1) of the Commission's rules (Rules),/3 that it would serve the public interest to allow CM Holdco to exceed the 25% benchmarks set forth in section310(b)(4) of the Act./4 Specifically, CM Holdco seeks a Commission ruling to (1) permit up to 100% aggregate indirect foreign ownership (equity and voting) of CM Holdco, and (2) specifically approve the involvement of three parties--two entities organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands and one citizen of the United Kingdom--in the ownership of CM Holdco and the broadcast radio licenses that it controls./5 CM Holdco filed the Amended Petition on behalf of itself and its wholly owned subsidiaries that hold Commission broadcast licenses./6
Background and Reason for Amended Petition. The current aggregate indirect foreign ownership of CM Holdco is 20.37% of its equity and 0% of the voting interest in CM Holdco./7 Although its foreign ownership is currently below the benchmarks set by section 310(b)(4), CM Holdco anticipates transactions that would increase the company's aggregate indirect foreign ownership interests to above the 25% benchmarks. Accordingly, CM Holdco seeks this declaratory ruling to facilitate such future transactions./8
As detailed in the Amended Petition, an increase in the aggregate indirect foreign ownership in CM Holdco would come from two potential sources, each involving an existing interest holder (or group of existing interest holders) increasing its respective equity interest in parent companies above CM Holdco./9
The first potential transaction involves Falcon CM Holdings, LLC (Falcon CM), a Delaware limited liability corporation that currently holds a 29% equity interest in Connoisseur Cos, LLC (Connoisseur Cos), a parent company of CM Holdco./10 Falcon CM holds no voting interest in Connoisseur Cos./11 Both because only a portion of Falcon CM's equity interest is held by foreign entities and because the calculation of Falcon CM's ultimate ownership interest in CM Holdco is diluted by the ownership interests of other stakeholders, the foreign ownership arising from Falcon CM's present interest is less than 25%. The sole member of Falcon CM--Falcon Strategic Partners V, LP, a Delaware limited partnership--holds convertible notes (Falcon Notes) that would allow it to convert an existing debt interest in Connoisseur Cos to equity (such exchange of notes for equity is hereinafter referred to as the Falcon Notes Conversion)./12 Specifically, the Falcon Notes Conversion would allow Falcon CM to increase its existing equity interest in Connoisseur Cos from 29% to 47.5%./13 Because two of Falcon CM's members are organized outside the United States, an increase in Falcon CM's equity interest in Connoisseur Cos would result in an increase of indirect foreign equity interests in the Petitioner.
The second transaction involves warrants issued as part of Connoisseur's recent acquisition of Alpha Media Holdings, Inc. (Alpha Media)./14 As part of that acquisition, certain former executives, shareholders, or investors of Alpha Media (referred to collectively herein as Former Alpha Participants) were issued warrants (Alpha Tranche Warrants) that allow them to obtain additional equity in Connoisseur Media Parent, LLC (CM Parent), a holding company that indirectly holds 100% of the equity and voting of CM Holdco./15 The right to obtain such additional equity depends on whether Connoisseur Media reaches certain valuations./16 In order to ensure that Connoisseur Media complies with section 310(b) if the Alpha Tranche Warrants are exercised, Petitioner seeks approval for this structure. At present, the Former Alpha Participants, some of which are non-U.S. entities, collectively hold 8.75% of the equity of CM Parent./17 As a result of the exercise of the Alpha Tranche Warrants, the equity interests held by non-U.S. Former Alpha Participants in CM Parent could rise from the current level of 4.49% to 8.57%./18
Request for Aggregate Foreign Ownership. According to the Amended Petition, the Falcon Notes Conversion, either alone or in combination with the exercise of the Alpha Tranche Warrants, would raise the aggregate indirect foreign ownership of CM Holdco to more than 25% of the company's equity. The Amended Petition indicates that, depending on the number and sequence of transactions, the indirect aggregate foreign ownership interests in CM Holdco could rise from the present level of 20.37% of equity and 0% voting to between 30.50% and 34.38% of equity and 0% voting./19 Accordingly, as the resulting foreign ownership levels would be above the 25% foreign ownership benchmarks set by section 310(b)(4) of the Act, CM Holdco seeks Commission approval for up to 100% aggregate indirect foreign ownership (equity and voting).
Specific and Advance Approval Requests. Further, pursuant to section 1.5001(i) of the Rules,/20 the Petitioner requests/21 that the Commission grant specific approval for the following foreign-organized entities or foreign individuals to indirectly hold more than 5% of the equity and/or deemed voting interests in CM Holdco:/22
1. Falcon Strategic Partners V (Cayman), LP (6.26 - 6.94% equity, 6.26 - 6.94% deemed voting) (Cayman Islands);/23
2. Falcon Strategic Partners V (Cayman 2), LP (5.48 - 6.07% equity, 5.48 - 6.07% deemed voting) (Cayman Islands);/24 and
3. Oliver G. Price (0% equity, 100% deemed voting) (United Kingdom).
The Amended Petition seeks approval for Oliver G. Price to hold a deemed 100% indirect, non-controlling voting interest in CM Parent by virtue of his position as an uninsulated member of CM Broadcast Management, LLC (CM Broadcast Management), the U.S. organized entity that ultimately controls CM Parent and CM Holdco./25 Additionally, according to the Amended Petition, "[f]ollowing receipt of the FCC's approval to become an uninsulated, non-controlling member of CM Broadcast Management, Mr. Price will also hold a less than 5 percent profits interest in CM Broadcast Management."/26 The Amended Petition states that it seeks approval to the extent necessary to allow "Mr. Price to hold up to a 5 percent equity interest (in the form of a profits interest) in CM Broadcast Management."/27
In addition, the Petitioner requests advance approval pursuant to section 1.5001(k) of the Rules/28 for Falcon Strategic Partners V (Cayman), LP and Falcon Strategic Partners V (Cayman 2), LP to each increase their indirect interests in CM Holdco up to a non-controlling 20.0% equity interest and a 20.0% deemed voting interest./29
Public Interest Benefits. CM Holdco states that grant of the Amended Petition will afford it greater access to capital and, thus, enable it to better compete in the media marketplace./30 The Petitioner asserts that greater investment will provide it with additional resources to invest in local content and new digital capabilities./31 It states further that favorable action on the Amended Petition would "incentivize foreign investment in broadcasting, and promote U.S. trade policy by encouraging reciprocal investment opportunities for U.S. companies in foreign markets."/32 CM Holdco highlights that the proposed foreign interest holders for whom specific approval is sought are "organized under the laws of the Cayman Islands or is a citizen of the United Kingdom, both of which are allies of the United States and investors in its economy, and with which the U.S. is engaged in robust reciprocal trade."/33 CM Holdco also notes that the Commission previously granted a petition for declaratory ruling permitting up to 100% aggregate foreign investment (equity and voting) in the Alpha Media broadcast stations that are now owned by CM Holdco, and that such prior investment similarly involved companies organized under the laws of the United Kingdom and the Cayman Islands./34 Finally, the Amended Petition emphasizes that the potential increase in indirect foreign equity holders does not change control of the company, as Jeffrey D. Warshaw, a U.S. citizen, will continue to hold de facto and de jure control of CM Holdco and the FCC broadcast licenses it controls./35
Coordination with Executive Branch Agencies. Consistent with the Rules, CM Holdco submitted responses to the standard questions to the Committee for the Assessment of Foreign Participation in the United States Telecommunications Services Sector (Committee) contemporaneous with its filing of the Petition at the Commission./36 On April 16, 2026, the Department of Justice (DOJ) on behalf of the Committee submitted a letter to the Commission in which it advised the Commission that it does not believe that a referral of the Amended Petition to the Committee for review is necessary./37 Accordingly, we find that it would not be an efficient use of resources for either the Executive Branch agencies or the Commission to refer the Amended Petition in these circumstances, and we will exercise our discretion to forgo formally referring the Amended Petition to the Executive Branch agencies./38 Although we are not formally referring the Amended Petition, per our standard practice, we will provide a courtesy copy of this public notice to the Executive Branch agencies. We also retain authority to pursue enforcement action by the Commission for non-compliance with the Act or the Rules.
EX PARTE STATUS OF THIS PROCEEDING
Pursuant to section 1.1200(a) of the Commission's Rules,/39 the Commission may adopt modified or more stringent ex parte procedures in particular proceedings if the public interest so requires. We announce that this proceeding will be governed by permit-but-disclose ex parte procedures that are applicable to non-restricted proceedings under section 1.1206 of the Rules./40
Parties making oral ex parte presentations are directed to the Commission's ex parte rules. Parties are reminded that memoranda summarizing the presentation must contain the presentation's substance and not merely list the subjects discussed./41 More than a one- or two-sentence description of the views and arguments presented is generally required./42 Other rules pertaining to oral and written presentations are set forth in section 1.1206(b) as well./43
GENERAL INFORMATION
The Petition for Declaratory Ruling referred to in this Public Notice has been accepted for filing upon initial review. The Commission may require CM Holdco to submit any additional documents or statements of fact that in its judgment may be necessary. The Commission also reserves the right to return any filing if, upon further examination, it is determined to be defective and not in conformance with the Commission's rules or policies.
Interested persons must file comments no later than June 8, 2026. Replies must be filed no later than June 23, 2026.
To allow the Commission to fully consider all substantive issues regarding the Petition in as timely and efficient a manner as possible, commenters should raise all issues in their initial filings. A party or interested person seeking to raise a new issue after the pleading cycle has closed must show good cause why it was not possible for it to have raised the issue previously./44 Submissions after the pleading cycle has closed that seek to raise new issues based on new facts or newly discovered facts should be filed within 15 days after such facts are discovered. Absent such a showing of good cause, any issues not timely raised may be disregarded by the Commission.
All filings concerning matters referenced in this Public Notice should refer to MB Docket No. 26109.
Submissions in this matter may be filed electronically (i.e., through the Commission's Electronic Filing Comment System (ECFS)) or by filing paper copies as follows:
* Electronic Filers: Documents may be filed electronically using the Internet by accessing the ECFS: http://www.fcc.gov/ecfs/.
* Paper Filers: Parties who choose to file by paper must file an original and one copy of each filing. Filings can be sent by commercial overnight courier or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail. All filings must be addressed to the Commission's Secretary, Office of the Secretary, Federal Communications Commission. Commercial overnight courier deliveries (any deliveries not by the U.S. Postal Service) must be sent to 9050 Junction Drive, Annapolis Junction, MD 20701. U.S. Postal Service First-Class, Express, and Priority mail must be addressed to 45 L Street, NE, Washington, DC 20554.
One copy of each pleading must be delivered electronically, by e-mail, or if delivered as paper copy, by commercial overnight courier, or by first-class or overnight U.S. Postal Service mail (according to the procedures set forth above for paper filings), to: (1) Albert Shuldiner, Audio Division, Media Bureau, at albert.shuldiner@fcc.gov; (2) Christopher Clark, Audio Division, Media Bureau, at christopher.clark@fcc.gov; and (3) Brendan Holland, Audio Division, Media Bureau, at brendan.holland@fcc.gov. Any submission that is e-mailed to Albert Shuldiner, Christopher Clark, and Brendan Holland should include in the subject line of the e-mail: (1) MB Docket No. 26-109; (2) the name of the submitting party; and (3) a brief description or title identifying the type of document being submitted (e.g., MB Docket No. 26- 109, [name of submitting party], Comments).
Copies of the Petition and any subsequently filed documents in this matter are available electronically through the Commission's Electronic Filing Comment System (ECFS), which may be accessed on the Commission's Internet website.
To request materials in accessible formats for people with disabilities (Braille, large print, electronic files, audio format), send an email to fcc504@fcc.gov or call the Consumer and Governmental Affairs Bureau at (202) 418-0530 (voice).
By: Chief, Audio Division, Media Bureau
* * *
Original text plus footnotes here: https://docs.fcc.gov/public/attachments/DA-26-452A1.pdf
SEC Chairman Atkins Issues Remarks at the Special Competitive Studies Project AI+ Expo
WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on May 8, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at the Special Competitive Studies Project AI+ Expo:* * *
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. And thank you to SCSP for the invitation to take part in this year's Expo. It is a pleasure to be here today with so many esteemed researchers, innovators, and builders from across the nation who are, in the most literal sense, leading America toward new frontiers of technological evolution. You, more than most, understand that the race for technological leadership is not ... Show Full Article WASHINGTON, May 9 -- The Securities and Exchange Commission issued the following remarks on May 8, 2026, by Chairman Paul S. Atkins at the Special Competitive Studies Project AI+ Expo: * * * Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. And thank you to SCSP for the invitation to take part in this year's Expo. It is a pleasure to be here today with so many esteemed researchers, innovators, and builders from across the nation who are, in the most literal sense, leading America toward new frontiers of technological evolution. You, more than most, understand that the race for technological leadership is nota spectator sport.
To begin, I must note that the views I express here are my own as Chairman and do not necessarily reflect those of the SEC as an institution or of my fellow Commissioners.
250 Years of American Ingenuity
Now, before I turn to the promising moment in which we stand today, I should like to take a brief look backward. Two hundred and thirty-four years ago, two dozen stockbrokers assembled beneath a buttonwood tree on Wall Street to establish the forerunner to the New York Stock Exchange. That simple agreement--less than a hundred handwritten words and far from perfect--set in motion a system that would govern the flow of capital for generations.
In the centuries since, our markets have never stood still. They have expanded, evolved, and reinvented themselves in lockstep with the ideas and technologies of each successive era. Markets channel human ingenuity toward society's most intractable problems by rewarding those who develop the most innovative solutions that others value enough to buy. They are, as Adam Smith said exactly 250 years ago, the mechanism by which the invisible hand transforms the pursuit of personal gain into the promotion of the public good.
The SEC's role, in turn, is to safeguard those markets that allow the spark of creativity to benefit society. When the agency performs that role well, capital finds its way to the ideas and people most capable of putting it to work--and innovation emerges. But when the SEC does not step up--when it is too slow, too rigid, or too inclined to treat novelty as inherently suspect--it can suffocate the spark that it was meant to protect under piling costs and uncertainty.
The SEC's posture toward innovation carries outsized consequences, not just for the financial markets more broadly, but for the firms that it directly regulates. The Commission wields a wide range of tools, from innovation-friendly exemptions to outright prohibitions, that, when used, can either foster or halt the adoption of new technologies. At its best, the Commission can meet innovation with thoughtfulness.
For example, in the late 1990s, electronic trading systems surged in popularity, unsettling old assumptions about how markets should function. But following several years of incremental no-action letters, then-Chairman Arthur Levitt believed it behooved the SEC to provide regulatory flexibility for the electronic markets to innovate. The resulting framework--Regulation Alternative Trading Systems, or "Reg ATS," --allowed for ATSs to be regulated as broker-dealers, compared to being regulated as full-fledged national securities exchanges.
Indeed, the Commission did not force that innovation into a rigid framework on day one. It allowed space for development, it issued targeted guidance, and as the market matured, it built a fit-for-purpose regulatory architecture around it.
More recently, the Commission staff has emulated this approach by willingly addressing the novel questions that rapidly changing blockchain technology presents to markets. Since the start of this Administration a year ago, the staff has issued guidance in the form of statements, FAQs, and no-action letters that reduce legal uncertainty and identify paths to compliance for issuers, registrants, and other market participants seeking to apply this technology to their operations.
Willingness--like that of Chairman Levitt--to allow innovation to take shape is one of the central reasons that our markets have remained the deepest, most liquid, and most resilient in the world. It is also a lesson worth calling to mind as evolving technologies find their footing across our markets and the institutions that serve them.
AI & Agentic Finance
Take, for example, artificial intelligence. There is a common tendency, understandable but erroneous, to treat AI as an unprecedented invention, a rupture in the fabric of history requiring an entirely new regulatory regime. In some respects, the pace of innovation is new. But the animating force behind it is not.
AI is part of a long line of capability-expanding tools and mind-aiding instruments, from the telegraph to the ticker tape, and the electronic order book onward--each in its time seeming to demand wholly new systems of safeguards.
Unique to AI, however, is the scale at which it operates. Machines now have the capacity to assist in decision-making at an exponential scope and speed that is reshaping industries across our economy. Firms can process vast quantities of information faster and identify patterns with more precision than ever before.
They can manage risk through methods that many considered impossible only a few years ago--and extend access to sophisticated financial tools to investors who previously lacked them. These are not trivial gains--they are the types of efficiencies that deepen markets and broaden participation in them.
Of course, these features that can create value also carry the potential to introduce new vulnerabilities. If models are opaque, it becomes harder to understand how decisions are reached and by whom. If tools are widely adopted across the industry, errors could propagate at an alarming speed. And if bad actors gain access to these systems, the consequences could be amplified in ways that are difficult to anticipate and still harder to contain.
Yet, however rapidly the technological landscape may change, our foundational principles do not.
That means that firms remain responsible for the outcomes of the tools that they deploy and for informing investors of how those tools are used. For our part at the SEC, we will not dictate which models firms must use, nor will we cement today's technology as the standard for tomorrow. Past regulatory postures teach us that such an approach would age poorly--and would almost certainly miss the mark.
Rather, what we will do is remain laser focused on the mandate that Congress assigned to our agency: that is protecting investors; maintaining fair, orderly, and efficient markets; and facilitating capital formation. Our job is to set the rules of play and referee the game, not to pick the winning team.
Onchain Financial Markets
Of course, that imperative is equally pressing in how we approach the multiplying number of market participants moving onchain.
Our existing framework identifies regulated market functions through distinct categories: namely, brokers or dealers, exchanges, clearing agencies, and transfer agents.
But software applications today do not always organize themselves neatly along these categorical lines. A single protocol can execute a trade, manage collateral, route liquidity, execute trading strategies through vault structures, and settle the transaction--all within a unified, automated system, often within seconds.
Now, allow me to outline areas in which I think the Commission needs to provide greater clarity as to how those principles apply in the context of onchain markets.
First, market participants should have a clear sense of how onchain trading systems can operate within the regulatory perimeter. To that end, while I anticipate that the Commission will consider a limited innovation pathway in the near future, I also think we should consider what a future-proofed framework may look like, which would take the form of notice and comment rulemaking and would address the "exchange" definition as applied to onchain trading systems.
Second, we should further consider the application of the broker and dealer definitions and the associated regulatory framework to these activities, including by addressing some of the issues raised in a recent staff statement on software interfaces.[1] This policy initiative may involve notice and comment exemptive rulemaking as well.
Third, I think we should ultimately consider rulemaking to address the definition of "clearing agency" with respect to persons facilitating onchain clearing and settlement, specifically to confirm which general-purpose activities fall outside the scope of the definition. When settlement is near-instantaneous and counterparty risk is managed algorithmically, the traditional clearing agency model requires fresh analysis.
Lastly, I think we should consider ways to provide clarity surrounding what are commonly referred to as "crypto vaults," particularly regarding Securities Act and Advisers Act touch-points. Crypto vaults are onchain software applications that are often designed to allow users to earn yield passively through the deployment of their assets into yield-generating opportunities onchain.
As the Commission considers these policy initiatives, we should remember that onchain market structures today are often hybrid in nature, combining elements of what are often referred to as "traditional" and "decentralized" finance. We should clarify how the Commission views the spectrum of models that may implicate our statutes through notice and comment rulemaking, using our exemptive authorities where necessary and prudent, all with full participation from innovators, investors, and the public alike.
In any event, continued engagement with investors, market participants, and our fellow regulators is vital. These issues do not always fall neatly within a single jurisdiction. Therefore, regulatory coordination is not a nicety. It is a necessity, if we are to avoid a patchwork that creates confusion and leaves investors unprotected in the gaps.
The SEC will keep moving forward in its work to accommodate markets moving onchain. But as we do, I continue to echo my call for Congress to send the CLARITY Act to President Trump's desk. Because, while I intend to future-proof our efforts through notice and comment rulemaking, there is no more powerful way to future-proof than enshrining sound statutory language in law.
The Path to America's Continued Leadership
But for now, let me close with this.
Moments such as the one in which we find ourselves today test whether a nearly century-old regulatory system can bend to accommodate innovation without breaking at its core. And they command a choice.
The easy road is to reject change, and to treat evolving technology as a threat to be ignored, contained, or forced into existing regulatory categories. And, where those approaches fail, it is to leverage uncertainty to push innovation off American shores. The experience of the offshore growth and implosion of FTX demonstrates the folly of pretending that Americans will not be harmed if we do not address innovative technologies and thereby force them offshore.
The more demanding road--but ultimately the more rewarding one--leads first to understanding, and then, where necessary, to careful adjustment and recalibration.
The United States has remained the leader of global markets because, at our best, we have continually devised new ways to integrate innovation into our capital markets, while keeping them worthy of investors' trust.
The original buttonwood tree on Wall Street no longer lives, but its progeny is in its place. Likewise, the basic principle of what started underneath that original tree and evolved over time endures--that capital markets, structured properly, can unleash the might of American dynamism as no central authority could. Our task--as it always has been--is to preserve that principle for the next quarter millennium and beyond.
An opportunity to do so lies in front of us today. I intend to seize it. And I am confident that, working together, we will.
Thank you very much for your time today. You all have been a patient and indulgent audience. And I look forward to the work ahead of us. Thank you.
* * *
[1] Division of Trading and Markets, Staff Statement Regarding Broker-Dealer Registration for Certain User Interfaces (Apr. 13, 2026), available at https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/staff-statement-regarding-broker-dealer-registration-certain-user-interfaces-utilized-prepare-staff-statement-regarding-broker-dealer-registration-certain-user-interfaces-utilized
* * *
Original text here: https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/atkins-remarks-scsp-ai-expo-050826