The results of the US midterm elections did not harm bitcoin. Moreover, the fundamental properties of the first cryptocurrency make it resilient to any change of power in Congress and the White House — including rhetoric about turning America into the world's crypto capital.

Andrew Bailey, a philosopher researching money and technology, analyzed what the shift in the balance of power in Congress means for bitcoin and for Donald Trump's political promises. His conclusion is unequivocal: BTC does not depend on who sits in the legislature. It is impossible to ban or devalue bitcoin by official decree — which means that for holders of the asset, the outcome of the vote changes little.

Rising prices and the failure of the crypto lobby

Americans voted primarily under the influence of the rising cost of living. In exit polls, 89% of voters named high prices as the most important factor in their choice, and in public opinion surveys inflation surpassed all other issues.

Bailey explained what bitcoin has to do with this. Prices rise when the state prints money. With BTC such a scenario will not work: issuance is limited, and new coins are released according to pre-known rules. Bitcoin will not make products cheaper, but it provides the opportunity to store savings in an asset that no authority can devalue. This works for people of any political views.

At the same time, the crypto industry itself lost in the elections. The sector spent about $200 million, of which the largest network of political committees invested more than $170 million:

  • about $75 million in support of Republicans;
  • $36 million against Democrats;
  • $30 million in support of Democrats.

Almost all of this money went to districts where the industry's candidates lost. The most high-profile example is the Senate seat from Ohio. For the investor, this means that the industry's political influence in Washington turned out to be less than it seemed.

Bitcoin is owned by both Democrats and Republicans

Nakamoto Project surveys showed: bitcoin holders exist in all political camps. In 2024, the coin was most often held by very liberal Americans (21.9%), then very conservative (17.6%) and moderate (14.3%). Ownership was influenced mainly by age and gender, not by views. In 2025 the picture remained the same: owners clustered closer to the center.

Hence the practical conclusion. Since bitcoin is held by millions of voters from both parties, it is disadvantageous for the new Congress to pass laws that prevent people from saving and spending in it. This reduces the risk of harsh bans that investors might have feared.

Bailey also recalled debanking — when banks deny services to people and companies because of their views. Bitcoin serves as a fallback option, because no one can prohibit using it.

Finally, Americans' trust in the state and institutions is at a minimum, and this does not depend on which party is in power. Therefore, demand for bitcoin as an alternative to ordinary money will persist under any composition of Congress.

Cryptalist analysis: The case demonstrates a key feature of bitcoin as an asset — its value is determined by network architecture and limited issuance, not by political circumstances. The failure of the crypto lobby in the elections, alongside bilateral support for BTC among voters, reduces the likelihood of aggressive regulatory bans, but does not eliminate the risks of targeted pressure on infrastructure. Institutional investors should evaluate bitcoin primarily through the prism of the Fed's monetary policy and the dynamics of real rates, rather than through electoral cycles.