Michael Selig was unanimously confirmed by the US Senate on Thursday, December 18, 2025, and he will soon be sworn in as the 15th Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC). Selig will assume leadership of the CFTC, which has been under the direction of Acting Chairman Caroline Pham for almost a year, the last few months of which Pham has been the sole Senate-confirmed official.
Selig is not new to the CFTC. He began his career in 2014 as a law clerk for then-CFTC Commissioner (and future Chairman) J. Christopher Giancarlo. Following his time with the CFTC, Selig moved into private practice, working at several global law firms. Selig’s practice focused on advising financial institutions, trading platforms and digital asset developers on compliance with securities and commodities laws. Selig returned to government in 2025 when he was appointed chief counsel for the Crypto Task Force of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), serving as senior advisor to SEC Chairman Paul Atkins.
With Selig at the helm, the CFTC will face many important decisions related to enforcement, crypto regulation and agency resources. During his confirmation hearing, Selig emphasized his commitment “to instituting common-sense principles and principles-based regulations that facilitate well-functioning markets and keep pace with the rapid speed of innovation.”1 Selig also highlighted his desire to scale back regulation, noting, “I’m in favor of the minimum effective dose of regulation, no more, no less.”2 Given the important issues at hand, we believe Selig’s philosophy will have a fundamental impact on the future and direction of the CFTC.
In this alert, we highlight six important issues to watch as Selig is sworn in to his new role as the Chairman of the CFTC.
1. The Evolving Role of CFTC Enforcement
At his confirmation hearing, Selig noted that he has “seen firsthand how regulators unaware of the real-world impact of their actions and zeal for regulation by enforcement can drive businesses offshore and smother entrepreneurs in red tape.” He specifically cited his experience “helping an agriculture firm that was forced to divert significant time and resources from its business to defend itself in an extensive investigation for harmless errors in its swap data reporting.”3
We expect Selig’s tenure at the CFTC to be broadly aligned with Pham’s philosophy of avoiding so-called regulation by enforcement and deprioritizing matters based on alleged failures to comply with technical regulations—such as recordkeeping and reporting—that do not otherwise result in customer loss or degradation of market integrity.
Selig will inherit a CFTC Division of Enforcement (DOE) that has undergone a significant shift in the past year. Under Pham, the DOE enforcement agenda has focused on a return to the basics. Pham reoriented the DOE away from “operational or technical non-compliance issues with no harm” and reallocated resources to focus on “DOE’s mission to protect against fraud, manipulation and abuse in our markets.”4 Pham also directed CFTC staff to follow the Department of Justice’s policy on digital asset enforcement and deprioritize matters involving violations of registration requirements.5
On February 4, 2025, Pham announced a reorganization of the DOE’s task forces to combat fraud and help victims.6 The previous DOE task forces were condensed into two new task forces: the Complex Fraud Task Force and the Retail Fraud and General Enforcement Task Force. A few weeks later, Pham announced a 30-day enforcement sprint to encourage market participants to expeditiously resolve open enforcement matters involving compliance issues.7 As part of the push to focus enforcement on matters of fraud, market abuse and consumer harm, Pham also revised the DOE’s self-reporting policies to allow disclosures to the CFTC’s operating divisions (instead of DOE). She also introduced a three-tier scale for self-reporting and a four-tier scale for cooperation, both of which provide presumptive mitigation credit discounts.8 On September 4, 2025, as a result of the sprint, the CFTC issued six orders that concurrently filed and settled compliance-related enforcement matters against 10 firms, resulting in $8,325,000 in penalties.9
Earlier this month, the CFTC announced amendments to its Rules of Practice and its Rules Relating to Investigations, the goal of which is increasing the transparency of enforcement proceedings. Consistent with some of Pham’s prior concerns about the enforcement process, the amendments include measures to improve internal action memoranda, improve notifications under the Wells process and extend the timeline for providing Wells submissions to 30 days.10
We expect Selig to be generally aligned with Pham’s focus on fraud, market abuse and consumer harm as opposed to sweeps and technical violations. However, we do not anticipate that the Selig Chairmanship will be without enforcement activity. Despite his criticism of regulation by enforcement, Selig referred to the CFTC in the future acting as “a cop on the beat, a strong cop on the beat under my leadership and I intend to always adhere to the law, make sure we’re enforcing the law.”11 At his confirmation hearing, Selig also emphasized that enforcement should “be vigilant in our surveillance efforts and our examination efforts of market participants and make sure that we’re policing fraud and manipulation in these markets.”12
Regulatory Harmonization and Coordination
With Selig joining the CFTC from his most recent role at the SEC—where he worked closely with Paul Atkins and other SEC senior leadership—we expect him to promote close collaboration with the SEC, prudential banking regulators, the Treasury and the White House. The CFTC and the SEC have recently prioritized regulatory harmonization and interagency collaboration, including by launching a cross-agency crypto initiative to coordinate efforts regarding the process for facilitating the trading of certain spot crypto asset products.13 In addition, in a joint statement, Atkins and Pham stated that the SEC and the CFTC “are committed to using [their] existing authorities to establish fit-for-purpose regulations for innovative products and trading platforms.”14
We anticipate that the CFTC will continue to prioritize regulatory harmonization with the SEC under Selig’s leadership. Selig previously participated in the President’s working group on digital asset markets.15 Consistent with recommendations in the working group report, specific areas where the CFTC and SEC might seek to collaborate include establishing crypto-related safe harbors, providing flexibility to registrants seeking to offer multiple services within a single user interface, and coordinating future crypto rulemaking efforts.16
Under Pham’s leadership, the CFTC launched a 12-month “Crypto Sprint” in August 2025, with a focus on three main components: (i) listed spot crypto trading on CFTC-registered designated contract markets (DCMs), which the CFTC announced had commenced on one DCM in early December 2025,17 (ii) facilitating the use of tokenized collateral, including stablecoins, and (iii) rulemakings amending the CFTC’s regulations to enable the use of blockchain technology and market infrastructure in derivatives markets.18 As part of this sprint, the CFTC has launched initiatives and sought public comment regarding the use of tokenized collateral and listed spot crypto trading.19 And in November 2025, Pham stated that the CFTC expects to commence rulemaking in 2026 to amend its regulations to accommodate blockchain technology, with the goal of finalizing the process by August of next year.20 Additionally, the CFTC recently announced the launch of a digital assets pilot program for tokenized collateral in derivatives markets.21
When nominated, Selig “pledge[d] to work tirelessly” to “help the President make the United States the Crypto Capital of the World.”22 Given Selig’s statements during his confirmation process and his previous work on crypto issues—both with the SEC’s Crypto Task Force and in private practice—we generally expect that he will further the CFTC’s focus on developing a regulatory framework that embraces crypto and promotes innovation. Although Selig has not explicitly discussed any of the CFTC’s ongoing crypto initiatives, during his confirmation hearing he noted that the CFTC currently possesses the authority to regulate certain aspects of crypto asset markets. Pursuant to this authority, we anticipate that the CFTC will adopt a forward-looking approach that allows CFTC registrants to engage in crypto-related activities.
Congress is currently considering crypto market structure legislation that would grant the CFTC substantial authority over crypto asset spot markets.23 For example, the CLARITY Act, which passed the House of Representatives in July 2025, would provide the CFTC with primary regulatory oversight over spot digital commodities as well as other authority over digital commodity markets and digital commodity market participants.24 And while the Senate is still developing its version of crypto market structure legislation, discussion drafts of the Senate legislation would grant the CFTC similar regulatory authority.25 During his confirmation hearing, Selig expressed support for crypto market structure legislation, noting that it is a key first step in providing clarity and enhancing consumer protection in these markets.
We anticipate that under Selig’s leadership, the CFTC will quickly move to implement any digital assets market structure legislation and keep pace with ongoing developments in these markets. Throughout the implementation process, we would also expect the CFTC to continue to seek industry input as it tailors its regulations under Selig’s leadership.
At his confirmation hearing, Selig emphasized his commitment to principles-based regulations and expressed concerns about the “unwritten law” developed through interpretive guidance and no-action letters, saying that it is “vitally important that we modernize and that we get rid of the law, the staff law, the no-action letters, all this kind of unwritten rules of the road where it’s really hard for everyday Americans to comply.”26 In several exchanges during his confirmation hearing, Selig expressed concerns about unnecessary regulatory burdens, noting that some rules could be implemented in a less burdensome manner.
This regulatory philosophy is not unlike Pham’s approach, who declared on her first day as Acting Chairman that the CFTC would “get back to basics.” It is also consistent with how previous CFTC Chairmen have addressed regulation, including Giancarlo’s Project KISS (Keep It Simple, Stupid) initiative, which was intended to be “an agency-wide review of CFTC rules, regulations and practices to make them simpler, less burdensome and less costly.”27
Given the work done by the CFTC during the previous Trump Administration, and some of the initiatives started by Pham that were described as intended to address “longstanding issues created by overreach in the CFTC’s implementation of the Dodd-Frank Act,”28 we expect several high-profile CFTC regulatory regimes to be reconsidered. This could include not just the swap dealer de minimis registration framework, but also swap dealer business conduct standard rules such as the pre-trade mid-market mark requirement, which was recently withdrawn through staff action.
Selig could also work to harmonize and recalibrate regulations applying to dually registered SEC and CFTC entities, such as swap dealers and security-based swap dealers, broker-dealers/future commission merchants (FCMs), and commodity pool operators and commodity trading advisers that are also registered with and regulated by the SEC.
Selig steps into leadership at the CFTC at a critical crossroads for the future of event contracts. Event contracts, which allow participants to enter into contracts to predict the outcome of real-world events, have sparked heated debate after a landmark ruling in September 2024 in which a federal district court declared that congressional control contracts traded on CFTC-regulated platforms are legitimate futures products rather than gaming.29
In the wake of this decision, CFTC-regulated platforms have begun offering a wider variety of event contracts, including those related to sports-based events. Although these contracts resemble traditional sports betting, they are facilitated by CFTC-registered entities such as FCMs and DCMs, blurring the line between financial products and gaming and putting long-standing state-federal regulatory boundaries to the test. More recently, traditional sports betting companies have entered the market, filing applications for registration with the CFTC or announcing partnerships with CFTC-regulated platforms to offer sports-based event contracts.
State gaming authorities have raised concerns about sports-based event contracts and issued cease-and-desist orders due to potential conflicts with state gaming laws. Currently, federal courts remain divided. District courts in Nevada and New Jersey granted temporary restraining orders against state regulators, determining that CFTC jurisdiction preempts state enforcement over event-based contracts on CFTC-regulated platforms.30 A district court in Maryland reached the opposite conclusion, ruling that the Commodity Exchange Act, and the amendments to the law under the 2010 Dodd-Frank Act that enable the CFTC to prohibit event contracts “contrary to the public interest,” do not preempt long-standing state gaming laws.31 Federal courts in Connecticut, New York, and Ohio have yet to issue rulings on similar actions.32
Most recently, a Nevada federal judge reversed his two prior preliminary injunctions, finding that the contracts offered were “sports wagers” rather than CFTC-regulated financial instruments. In the opinions, the judge stated that sports-based event contracts are not “swaps” within the CFTC’s exclusive jurisdiction because they are based on the outcomes of sporting events and do not involve events or contingencies “inherently joined or connected” with potential financial consequences.33 These cases are currently pending appeal and could ultimately require resolution by the US Supreme Court.
At the same time, there are several putative class actions against CFTC-regulated platforms offering sports-based event contracts.34 The class-actions allege that sports-based event contracts offered on CFTC-regulated platforms violate state and federal gaming laws and they seek declaratory and injunctive relief, including money damages and disgorgement.35 The class actions are still at the earliest stages and are not likely to be resolved quickly.
The CFTC has yet to clarify its stance on sports-based event contracts. During his confirmation hearing, Selig made clear that he intends to defer to judicial decisions regarding the legality of sports-based event contracts, rather than taking a proactive regulatory stance. He emphasized respect for ongoing court proceedings and suggested that Congress may ultimately need to clarify statutory ambiguities.
Selig’s “light touch” approach signals continuity with recent CFTC leadership, prioritizing adherence to legal precedent and judicial interpretation over immediate CFTC action. This stance has drawn criticism from some policymakers and industry groups, who argue that regulatory uncertainty leaves market participants and consumers exposed while litigation plays out. Several senators asked Selig to meet with interested parties and constituencies outside the CFTC’s traditional remit, suggesting that this approach will remain an area of debate and focus both at the CFTC and on Capitol Hill in 2026.
During Selig’s confirmation hearing, senators raised concerns regarding CFTC resources and staffing.36 Selig also received several questions related to the vacant Commissioner seats at the CFTC.37
Staffing and Resources
Since the beginning of the second Trump Administration, the CFTC has seen a reduction of approximately 20% of its workforce and currently employs around 600 staff members.38 With the House passing the CLARITY Act and the Senate considering its own crypto market structure legislation, the CFTC faces significantly greater jurisdictional authority despite reduced staffing compared with previous administrations.
During his confirmation hearing, Selig declined to make a definitive statement about the need for additional staff or resources, emphasizing that, if confirmed, he would first analyze and evaluate the agency’s current resource needs.39 Following this assessment, he said he would commit to work with the Senate to secure the necessary funding to “fulfill our critical mission.”40
When senators pressed Selig on the issue of whether he supported any amount of additional funding, he reaffirmed that he could not decide whether the agency needed additional funding before he was appointed.41
The bipartisan Senate Agriculture Committee’s digital assets legislative proposal includes provisions to give the CFTC additional resources, specifically authorizing $150 million to implement a crypto regulatory framework.42 While Selig refrained from commenting on this provision, Senate Agriculture Committee Chairman John Boozman (R-AR) pledged to collaborate with senators to ensure adequate funding.43
Commission Composition
During Selig’s confirmation hearing, senators also expressed concerns about the lack of commissioners at the CFTC. If confirmed, upon Pham’s departure, Selig would be the sole commissioner, granting the Trump administration considerable influence over the agency’s priorities. Traditionally, the CFTC is comprised of five members: two Democrats, two Republicans, and a Chairman aligned with the current administration.
Several senators, primarily Democrats, questioned how bipartisan consensus on digital assets market structure legislation could be possible without Democratic Commissioners to provide technical guidance or participate in CFTC rulemaking.44 Selig declined to comment on whether the vacant seats set a problematic precedent, deferring to the President on nomination decisions.45 He did, however, affirm his commitment to valuing diverse viewpoints and working collaboratively with any future appointees.46
We expect these two issues will remain present as Congress works on potential digital assets market structure legislation, particularly as the Senate seeks to develop a bipartisan proposal that will satisfy lawmakers on both sides of the aisle. One path to compromise might involve addressing the CFTC’s resources to provide greater funding to the agency and filling vacant Commissioner seats.
During the Biden Administration, registration application reviews for DCMs, derivatives clearing organizations (DCOs), FCMs and other CFTC registrant categories often took years to result in CFTC approval or an amendment to an existing registration order.
In the past year, however, the pace of registration reviews appears to have substantially increased. Several DCMs received designations (approvals) within months of submitting their applications this year.47 Contributing to this shift are certain changes made by the CFTC under Pham’s leadership, including the expansion of the CFTC’s FCM registration FAQs in July 202548 and its launch in August 2025 of the “Crypto Sprint,” which rescinded staff guidance and established pilot programs aimed at accelerating review times.49 When Pham first assumed leadership at the CFTC in January 2025, her tenure was marked by a notable wave of approvals for long-pending DCM and DCO applications. Prior to Pham’s leadership of the agency, only three DCMs had received approval since 2022.50 In 2025 alone, five DCMs have received approval, as well as two DCOs.51 We expect this trend to continue; recently, Pham noted that new DCOs supporting tokenized collateral, including stablecoins, will be “going live by Q1 or Q2 of next year.”52
As Selig steps into the role of CFTC Chairman, market participants and aspiring registrants can reasonably expect continued momentum for expedited review of pending applications. In his November 2025 Senate testimony, Selig stated that streamlining the application process was a “key priority.”53 He has pledged to implement clear guidance and rapid, transparent rulemaking to prevent further regulatory slowdowns, stating he plans to “remove a lot of these barriers that are really in [the] way [of] success” for applications.54 Selig’s goal of streamlining the process, combined with the already successful reforms from earlier this year, indicates that the approval environment for DCMs, DCOs and FCMs is likely to accelerate even further in the coming year.
