In a surprising revelation that has stirred discussion across political and crypto circles, former U.S. Representative Patrick McHenry has claimed that ex-SEC Chair Gary Gensler held a much more favorable view of cryptocurrencies behind closed doors than he ever let on in public. Speaking candidly on the Crypto of America podcast, McHenry suggested that political pressure and ambitions—not ideology alone—shaped Gensler’s tough public stance on digital assets.
This revelation paints a complex picture of one of the most controversial figures in U.S. crypto regulation.
A Tale of Two Genslers: Private Supporter, Public Skeptic
According to McHenry, who previously chaired the House Financial Services Committee, Gensler wasn’t the anti-crypto crusader many believed him to be—at least not in private conversations. McHenry said that in one-on-one settings, Gensler acknowledged the potential and value of blockchain and digital assets, even demonstrating deep technical knowledge. Yet, once the cameras were rolling, Gensler became a staunch enforcer, often seen as hostile to the industry he privately appeared to understand and respect.
“He knew the value,” McHenry remarked. “He was in a position to foster innovation but instead went on what many saw as a regulatory crusade against the industry.”
McHenry even credited Gensler with being one of the original minds behind the airdrop model—a now-popular method used by crypto projects to distribute tokens and create liquidity. That irony isn’t lost on the crypto community: someone deeply familiar with the inner workings of the industry ended up as one of its most aggressive regulators.
Politics Over Policy?
McHenry believes Gensler’s shift wasn’t necessarily about changing his mind on the tech—but rather about playing the political game. He pointed to Senate politics, particularly the influence of progressive figures like Senator Elizabeth Warren, as key motivators behind Gensler’s more antagonistic public behavior.
“He aligned himself with a view that fit the political moment, not necessarily the technology’s reality,” McHenry said.
Warren, a vocal crypto critic, has consistently called for tighter oversight of the digital asset space, despite criticism that she lacks a nuanced understanding of blockchain technologies. Gensler, according to McHenry, should have known better.
A Legacy in Question
McHenry didn’t mince words when discussing Gensler’s impact on the SEC. He claimed that under Gensler’s leadership, the agency became a “rogue institution,” enforcing rules without proper economic analysis, public consultation, or clarity.
That legacy, McHenry argues, could have lasting effects. Politically motivated regulation not only risks stifling innovation, but also deters entrepreneurs and developers from building within U.S. borders.
McHenry’s critique isn’t new. Back in May 2024, he accused Gensler of misleading Congress during a key hearing by dodging questions about Ethereum’s legal status—even though internal SEC communications had reportedly already classified it as a security. That evasiveness, McHenry said, was a deliberate attempt to obscure the agency’s position.
Gensler Doesn’t Budge
Despite the criticism, Gensler has stood firm. As his tenure at the SEC wound down in early 2025, he reiterated his concerns about the crypto market’s lack of compliance with existing U.S. securities laws. He argued that many digital assets are highly speculative and questioned their actual use cases.
Still, Gensler did make room for some progress. In January 2024, he approved the launch of spot Bitcoin ETFs by major asset managers, including BlackRock, giving investors a regulated gateway to Bitcoin exposure without direct ownership.
However, these developments didn’t stop President Trump—during his 2024 campaign—from promising Gensler’s removal. True to his word, Trump later replaced him with crypto-friendly attorney Paul Atkins, a longtime advocate for regulatory clarity without overreach.
The Bigger Picture
While Gensler’s stance continues to polarize, McHenry’s recent remarks add a new layer of complexity to the former SEC Chair’s regulatory legacy. If Gensler truly understood and even appreciated the promise of digital assets, his aggressive public posture may have been less about principle and more about politics.
The question now is whether future regulators will continue that pattern—or if they’ll finally bridge the gap between private insight and public policy.
