Crypto-Friendly Rules Under Fire: A Battle Between National Security and Financial Freedom?

Key Takeaways:

• Rep. Casten warns that “crypto-friendly” regulations undermine anti-money laundering efforts and enable ransomware attacks.
• Rep. Davidson argues that excessive regulation could push the U.S. toward an authoritarian-style surveillance system.
• Experts advocate decentralization as a key safeguard against surveillance risks posed by AI and centralized blockchains.

The ongoing debate highlights how different parts of the government are divided in their priorities when it comes to cryptocurrency and blockchain regulation, and how they sometimes butt heads when trying to rein in a new industry aglow with the ideals of national security versus the values of freedom. This hearing on H.R. 1716, the “Taiwan Conflict Deterrence Act of 2025,” was a flashpoint for larger concerns around innovation, regulation, and civil liberties in the space of digital assets, thanks to the growing divide between the two parties.

National Security Argument: A Slippery Slope?

Rep. Sean Casten (D-Illinois) sparked controversy by declaring that “crypto-friendly rules” directly undermine U.S. national security. Casten also strongly criticized efforts that he claims are aimed at dismantling anti-money laundering (AML) and financial surveillance laws.

He was blunt, saying, “They are pushing crypto-friendly rules that would make it essentially impossible to determine the source of funds that are being used to be transferred. I want to point out that 100% of the ransomware attacks in the United States are funded by crypto.” His argument rests on the belief that relaxed regulations would signal to criminals that they could operate with impunity, especially in the event of a ransomware attack, as it would provide a safe haven to profit without leaving a trail back to the perpetrator. And he suggested that making it “easier to use crypto, reduce the oversight, and make it easier to traffic money” would lead to dire outcomes.

Representative Sean Casten opposed pro-crypto policies

It’s a feeling many share who worry that cryptocurrency could be abused by criminal operations and government-affiliated individuals. However, the anonymous nature of some cryptocurrencies, along with the complexities of cross-border transactions, can certainly make it difficult for law enforcement to trace and halt criminal funds on their exchange.

Take, for example, the 2021 Colonial Pipeline ransomware attack. The FBI subsequently retrieved some of the ransom payment made in Bitcoin, but the incident made clear the susceptibility of critical infrastructure systems to cyberattacks paid for with cryptocurrency. Such events support the argument for tightening regulations to help protect national security.

The Surveillance State Retort: A Danger to Freedom?

Representative Warren Davidson (R-Ohio) took a sharply divergent view, accusing supporters of tighter regulation of seeking a “surveillance state.” Davidson rebuffed Casten’s comments and said that the aim is to have more control over the American people. The U.S. should not gravitate toward China’s authoritarian model as a means of deterrence to other world adversaries, he stressed. He urged his fellow lawmakers not to forget the principles in the U.S. Constitution about individual liberties and limited government oversight.

Davidson doubles down on the fear of excessive regulation that, while pointing the blame in different directions depending on where you sit, is the same complaint shared by those who fear that regulation of the internet hampers innovation and undermines privacy. Others fret that efforts to tame cryptocurrency with intensive surveillance regimes could have a chilling effect, inhibiting its legitimate use and opening the door to wider government incursions on people’s personal finances.

While many cryptocurrency advocates argue that it is a fundamentally disruptive tech that can empower individuals and promote financial inclusion, they also warn that overregulation would drive this potential away, and the U.S. would miss out on becoming a leader in the growing digital economy.

Echoes of Snowden: Is Decentralization the Answer?

The discussion also revolved around the broader issue of surveillance by the government and the way a power can be abused. The warnings of Edward Snowden, the former NSA contractor who became a whistleblower, hovered over the deliberations.

Snowden previously exposed details of mass surveillance programs that contributed to distrust in government overreach. In April 2024, Snowden warned that the NSA was on the verge of cornering the internet, thanks to the expansion of section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA). He cautioned that the description of an “electronic communications surveillance provider” was imprecise. As Snowden notes, this would very likely require many people to act as surveillance agents of the US government from office workers and contractors with providers.

He has been a perennial advocate of decentralization as a means of protecting civil liberties in the digital age. Snowden raised the alarm on centralized blockchains and AI in November 2024, advocating for decentralization as a bulwark against the damage caused from concentrations of digital power. This close relationship between power and technology is a central theme for him; in fact, he believes that centralized systems are inherently susceptible to control and manipulation, while decentralized systems provide more resilience and autonomy.

Other experts in the field echo these concerns about AI-driven surveillance risks. David Holtzman, a former military intelligence professional and the current chief strategy officer of the Naoris decentralized security protocol, has also warned about AI-driven surveillance threats. In December 2024, Holtzman made the case that decentralization is key to preventing the online world from becoming an authoritarian dystopia. He also contends that decentralization was crucial to thwarting an ascendant authoritarian menace.

In contrast, decentralized technologies like blockchain and peer-to-peer networks present alternative paradigms that could be more resilient and immune to such risks.

More News: SEC Kicks Off “Spring Sprint” Roundtables to Clarify Crypto Regulations

The Balance: Innovation vs. Regulation

The ongoing debate over how cryptocurrencies should be regulated is far from resolved. It will take thoughtful consideration and honest discourse to strike the right balance between encouraging innovation, protecting national security and preserving personal freedoms.

The post Crypto-Friendly Rules Under Fire: A Battle Between National Security and Financial Freedom? appeared first on CryptoNinjas.