Defeating Donald Trump’s authoritarian movement requires taking on the largest industry financing it: cryptocurrency.
We know most people’s eyes glaze over at the mere mention of the word “crypto.” The industry’s lobbyists depend on that; they win when
the public is kept in the dark. But this is the biggest money-and-power story in American politics right now, and it’s important we all pay attention.
We come at this from different directions. Ben is an actor, author, and filmmaker who spent years investigating crypto fraud. Ezra co-founded Indivisible, a grassroots pro-democracy movement with thousands of local groups across the country. From different vantage points, we’ve reached the same conclusion: Crypto is no longer just a risky investment. It’s a dangerous political machine fueled by corruption.
The crypto industry is reshaping American politics from the shadows, spending nearly $200 million already to influence the 2026 elections. There is an all-too-familiar playbook for buying influence in Washington: Interest groups funnel millions into primaries through super PACs, using outside spending and misleading attacks to defeat candidates and install their preferred policymakers. Crypto is deploying that playbook now, because it has billions of dollars riding on the regulatory decisions the federal government makes.
The political investments have already paid dividends. Last year, Congress passed the GENIUS Act, an industry-friendly crypto bill that sailed through the House and Senate. Advocates warned that Trump would use the bill to self-enrich, but Republicans rejected any ethics provisions that would have tied his hands. In the end, near-unanimous Republican support and dozens of Democratic votes gave the crypto industry and Trump what they wanted.
Trump’s payday was historic. His own financial disclosure shows he earned more than $1.4 billion from crypto ventures last year. His ties represent a new level of corruption: The president is openly profiting from an industry spending heavily to influence elections and secure favorable government treatment.
But Trump isn’t satisfied. Congress handed him a printing press, and now he’s pushing for a bigger one. At his and the industry’s urging, Congress is considering the CLARITY Act, an even more consequential proposal. The bill would shift much of crypto oversight to a weaker regulatory body, a move critics warn would soften investor protections, create regulatory loopholes, and further open the door to corruption.
While Washington cashes in, ordinary Americans bear the risks. Crypto’s boom-and-bust cycles have left countless consumers exposed to fraud, scams, and market collapses while insiders emerge wealthier. The fight over crypto is no longer a niche financial or technology policy debate. It is about consumer protection, corruption, and whether our democracy allows concentrated wealth to purchase both elections and the policies that follow. It’s about whether anything constrains Trump’s insatiable appetite for money and power.
If Democrats are serious about confronting Trump’s corruption, they must challenge the financial interests sustaining it. Voters are looking for fighters, not folders — and you cannot fight corruption while cashing its checks. That means rejecting legislation like the CLARITY Act while the industry behind it spends hundreds of millions to influence lawmakers in an election year. It means rejecting crypto campaign contributions and independent expenditures. A party committed to fighting for democracy cannot be dependent on an industry enriching Trump and his allies.
Standing up to crypto is not only good policy — it is also good politics. Voters want leaders focused on lowering costs, protecting consumers, and holding wealthy special interests accountable. The question before Congress is not simply how crypto should be regulated. It is whether industries should be allowed to spend fortunes shaping elections and then write the rules that govern them. If Democrats want to show voters they are serious about fighting corruption, the answer must be no.
Click here to read the full article.
