Gensler’s Private Support for Crypto Revealed by McHenry Amid Public Opposition

• Recent revelations by former US Representative Patrick McHenry suggest that Gary Gensler’s private views on cryptocurrency diverged sharply from his public persona.

• McHenry disclosed that Gensler recognized the potential of digital assets and blockchain technology in private discussions, raising questions about his regulatory motives.

• “Did he come across, or was he as anti-crypto in private as he did in public?” McHenry’s answer was emphatic: “No… Nope.”

A controversial insider perspective reveals that former SEC Chair Gensler saw potential in crypto privately, contradicting his public opposition.

Gensler’s private views vs. public statements on crypto

The contrasting views of Gary Gensler on cryptocurrency, as revealed by McHenry, highlight a significant discrepancy between private discussions and public policy. While Gensler championed strict regulations and enforcement actions as SEC chair, evidence suggests he was more open to innovation in digital assets during private conversations. This raises essential questions regarding the motives behind his regulatory decisions.

Confusing discussions and political pressures

McHenry explained that his conversations with Gensler regarding crypto regulation often became confusing due to contradictory statements. Initially agreeing to certain points, Gensler would later refute those same facts. This inconsistency led McHenry to speculate that Gensler’s public opposition was influenced more by Senate politics than by personal belief.

As Gensler transitioned from academia to regulatory leadership, his approach shifted dramatically. Under his stewardship, the SEC adopted an aggressive enforcement strategy, resulting in over 100 actions targeting the crypto industry. This has drawn criticism from industry experts, suggesting that the regulatory environment may be stifling innovation.

Backlash from industry leaders

As regulatory scrutiny intensified, backlash against Gensler’s policies grew among industry leaders. In a notable case, Coinbase CEO Brian Armstrong accused the SEC of “unlawfully killing” the crypto industry. This sentiment reflects a broader frustration with regulatory overreach that has characterized Gensler’s tenure.

The impact of Gensler’s return to academia

Following his departure from the SEC in January 2025, Gensler returned to the Massachusetts Institute of Technology to teach courses on fintech and artificial intelligence. This return to academia has prompted mixed reactions, particularly regarding his influence on the next generation of tech leaders. Industry observers, including Gemini’s decision to boycott hiring MIT graduates as long as Gensler remains, underscore the tensions between academia and regulatory practices.

Conclusion

The insights from McHenry regarding Gary Gensler’s private views on cryptocurrency emphasize the complexities in regulatory frameworks and public policies. Understanding these discrepancies is vital for stakeholders navigating the evolving landscape of digital assets. As the discourse around crypto regulation continues, clarity and consistency in communication will be crucial for fostering an environment that balances innovation with oversight.