SEC 2026 Agenda Signals Relief: Policy Weekly 7/10/26

SEC 2026 agenda signals regulatory relief for private fund advisers, continued focus on capital formation

Author:

The Carta Policy Team

Published date:

July 10, 2026

Plus, SCOTUS strips agency independence.

Topline

SEC releases 2026 regulatory agenda with focus on crypto and bolstering public and private markets

The SEC released its 2026 regulatory agenda this week, providing the clearest roadmap yet for Chairman Paul Atkins’s priorities to expand access to private markets, reduce friction for companies to go and stay public, and create durable rules of the road for crypto and tokenized securities. The agenda includes dozens of anticipated rulemakings that reflect Atkins’s broader philosophy: The SEC should provide a clear, durable framework that allows capital to flow, companies to grow, and investors to make informed decisions, not a regulatory structure that controls outcomes or suffocates innovation.

Expanding private market access. A major focus of the agenda is expanding retail access to private markets. Atkins has made clear that fewer public companies mean fewer opportunities for ordinary investors to participate in the growth of the next generation of American enterprise. If more value creation is happening while companies remain private, then the regulatory framework has to account for how investors can responsibly access that growth. The SEC has already taken steps to allow registered fund vehicles to provide broader exposure to private funds, and the agenda suggests the Commission is now looking to formalize and expand that framework through a dedicated rulemaking. The agenda also tees up updates to exempt offering pathways, including potential changes to the accredited investor definition, and a long-awaited proposal on finders—an issue the startup ecosystem has raised for years as a way to help issuers connect with investors without forcing all intermediaries into full broker-dealer registration.

Reducing burdens on private fund advisers. The agenda anticipates reforms that could reduce compliance burdens on private fund advisers. The SEC and CFTC have already proposed significant changes to Form PF, including raising the filing threshold from $150 million to $1 billion in private fund AUM and eliminating certain quarterly event reporting and current reporting requirements—changes that would eliminate filing obligations for almost half of advisers currently required to file, while still preserving visibility into more than 90% of reported private fund gross asset value. The agenda also previews potential changes to pay-to-play restrictions, which could reduce compliance exposure for advisers raising from public pension LPs; adviser recordkeeping requirements for electronic communications; and the custody rule. On custody, the agenda’s primary focus is modernizing the framework for digital assets, but any reopening of the rules could create an opportunity to address persistent private fund pain points, including the treatment of co-investment SPVs and other holding structures that can trigger separate audit and compliance obligations under current guidance.

Revamping public markets. The agenda continues Atkins’s “Make IPOs Great Again” push. Several public company reforms are already moving, including disclosure modernization, semiannual reporting, EGC accommodations, filer-status simplification, and registered offering reform—all designed to reduce the cost of being public and make the public markets more attractive and sustainable once companies arrive there. The agenda also includes anticipated Rule 144 safe harbor amendments, which could have direct implications for secondary liquidity by easing resale constraints on restricted and control securities and improving the pre-IPO resale pipeline. Taken together, these reforms connect the full company lifecycle: private capital formation, secondary liquidity, IPO readiness, and the cost of remaining public.

Crypto clarity. The agenda reflects the SEC’s continued focus on crypto, underscoring the agency’s broader posture that blockchain is becoming market infrastructure, not just an asset class. The Commission is expected to formalize what it has largely been delivering through staff guidance, no-action letters, and enforcement restraint—a rules-based framework for crypto capital raising, custody, trading, and tokenized securities. That matters because rulemaking gives market participants more durable legal authority than interpretive guidance, particularly as progress on the CLARITY Act remains uncertain in the Senate.

What’s not included: AML and AI? The most recent agenda does not include a previously referenced joint customer identification program rulemaking with FinCEN, which is consistent with Treasury’s decision to delay the related adviser AML/CFT investment adviser rule until January 2028. That does not mean adviser AML obligations are off the table, but it does suggest the policy direction is shifting from near-term implementation to reconsideration of scope, timing, and operational burden.

The agenda is notably silent on AI, even as it is reshaping how firms communicate with investors, provide advice, automate compliance, detect fraud, and manage cyber risk, yet there is no reference to the disruptive technology on the agenda. Part of that may be timing, as the regulatory roadmap is often finalized months before release—and the regulatory scrutiny has notably intensified over the past few months. But it could also signal a deliberate choice. Rather than regulate AI as a separate product category, the SEC may be more inclined to address its use through existing obligations around fiduciary duty, conflicts, supervision, books and records, cybersecurity, disclosure, and anti-fraud authority. Either way, policymakers will face increasing pressure to answer downstream questions around cyber-enabled market abuse, automated advice, model governance, vendor risk, and the use of AI agents in trading and compliance—questions the SEC will eventually have to answer.

Why it matters: We are at an inflection point where policy and innovation are converging to reshape the infrastructure of capital markets. The Atkins SEC is trying to rebuild the capital markets framework around innovation, access, and U.S. competitiveness. The boundaries between public and private markets are blurring, new investor classes are gaining access, and technology is changing the infrastructure on which they operate. This is a real opportunity to shape the future of private capital in a way that not only bolsters the ecosystem but also broadens it in a more responsible and sustainable manner.

SCOTUS curtails agency independence, reshaping the future of financial regulation

On June 29, the Supreme Court issued one of its most consequential administrative law decisions in decades. In Trump v. Slaughter, the Court ruled 6-3 that presidents may remove commissioners at independent federal agencies—including the SEC, CFTC, and FTC—without cause, overturning the nearly century-old Humphrey’s Executor precedent that had insulated those officials from at-will presidential removal. The decision fundamentally reshapes the balance of power between the White House and independent regulators, making clear that agencies exercising executive authority are ultimately accountable to the President.

The lone exception: the Federal Reserve. In a separate 5-4 decision, the Court preserved the Fed's removal protections based on its unique historical role in monetary policy and the national economy.

Background: The case arose after President Trump removed Democratic FTC Commissioners Rebecca Kelly Slaughter and Alvaro Bedoya in March 2025 because their continued service was “inconsistent with his Administration’s priorities.” Slaughter challenged her dismissal, arguing that the FTC Act permits removal only for “inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance in office,” consistent with Humphrey’s Executor. Although she initially prevailed in the lower courts, the Supreme Court held that those statutory removal protections are unconstitutional because FTC commissioners exercise executive power and therefore must remain accountable to the President. In doing so, the Court rejected the constitutional foundation that has supported the independence of many multi-member regulatory commissions like the SEC for more than 90 years.

Why it matters: Financial regulation is increasingly made through agency rulemaking, guidance, and enforcement rather than congressional legislation. Although SEC chairs have always established the Commission’s policy agenda, Congress intentionally designed independent commissions with bipartisan membership and staggered five-year terms to provide continuity and regulatory stability across administrations. Slaughter changes that dynamic. The president now has greater influence over both the composition and policy direction of independent agencies, increasing the likelihood that regulators move more quickly—and more uniformly—to implement an administration’s priorities.

As a result, policy may become more politically responsive, but also more susceptible to change every four years.

For private markets, the practical implications are significant. An administration seeking to expand capital formation, modernize exempt offerings, broaden retail access to private markets, or accelerate crypto regulation may now have greater ability to ensure agency leadership executes that agenda without internal resistance. Bipartisan commissions may be a thing of the past. But the same is true in the opposite direction. Future administrations could rapidly reverse course on those same priorities, making regulatory policy more responsive to elections but less durable over time.

The practical consequence is that lasting policy changes may increasingly require congressional action rather than agency rulemaking alone. Market participants that have looked to regulators to deliver durable reforms may find that those reforms are only as stable as the administration that adopted them.

Bottom line: Together with Loper Bright and the Court’s broader effort to narrow agency authority, Slaughter continues the Roberts Court's broader project of reshaping the administrative state. The decision doesn’t simply affect who leads federal agencies; it changes how durable financial regulation will be. Presidential elections will carry greater weight, agency independence will play a smaller role, and long-term regulatory certainty will increasingly depend on Congress rather than administrative discretion.

U.S. lifts export restrictions on Anthropic models as frontier AI review regime takes shape

The administration lifted export controls on Anthropic's Claude Mythos 5 and Fable 5 on June 30, ending a nearly three-week shutdown triggered by national security concerns over Fable 5’s cybersecurity capabilities. Redeployment followed additional safety review and a commitment from Anthropic to proactively address security risks, work with the government on evaluation standards for future models, and flag malicious activity—terms that track directly with the company’s posture that frontier AI companies need clearer, more predictable rules around model security. Commerce Secretary Lutnick separately authorized Mythos 5 access for a select group of critical infrastructure operators and federal agencies ahead of the full lift, establishing a tiered redeployment structure that previews what a formal trusted-partner regime may look like in practice.

OpenAI followed a similar path with GPT-5.6, launching to roughly 20 government-vetted partners on June 26 at the administration's request before broader availability on July 9.  OpenAI was unambiguous that it viewed the arrangement as a one-time accommodation, not a template for a government access process to become the long-term default.

Why it matters: Together, the Anthropic and OpenAI episodes suggest the June 2 executive order's nominally voluntary security certification process—which the order itself expressly disclaims as any form of mandatory licensing or preclearance—may already be functioning as the de facto launch pathway for the most capable models. Both cases ran on ad hoc government pressure well ahead of the August 1 deadline by which NSA and the multi-agency group must publish the classified benchmarking criteria and formal framework rules that would actually define what a “covered frontier model” is and what review entails. Frontier AI regulation is being written in real time, largely through case-by-case engagement with the leading private labs, and the gap between voluntary framing and operational reality is significant.

For investors and end-users, model capability is no longer the only variable: launch timing, access restrictions, and compliance exposure now factor into product and investment calculus. The administration’s de facto review regime is itself the strongest argument for what industry has been pushing for: a transparent, risk-based framework with clear criteria, defined timelines, and predictable outcomes. An ad hoc review process that delays or restricts U.S. model access abroad does not just create domestic compliance uncertainty; it risks ceding ground in the global race to define the AI market.

Quick hits

Carta’s take : Beyond Trump Accounts, the initiative could expand the use of stock as a mainstream funding mechanism for long-term savings. Developing the operational and tax  infrastructure could bolster broader efforts to modernize retirement and wealth-building policy—including proposals to allow private company equity and other appreciated assets to be contributed directly into tax-advantaged retirement accounts. The result would be a shift toward treating equity ownership itself, rather than cash alone, as a core building block of long-term wealth accumulation.