The assertion is false, and the smallest n for which it fails is n=25. Given n≥2, let r be the remainder when 2n is divided by n. Then 2n=kn+r where k is a positive integer and 0≤r<n. It follows that
22n=2kn+r≡2r(mod2n−1),
where 2r<22n−1. Thus, the remainder when 22n is divided by 2n−1 is 2r. Now, 2r is a power of 4 if and only if r is even, so to disprove the assertion it is enough to find an n for which the corresponding r is odd. We describe now a method to find such an n.
If n is even then so is r=2n−kn. If n is an odd prime then 2n≡2(modn) by Fermat's Little Theorem; hence r≡2n≡2(modn) and r=2. Therefore, we may rule out these values of n.
It remains to try cases in which n is odd and composite. In the first three instances n=9,15,21 there is no contradiction to the assertion:
n=9:26≡1(mod9)⇒29≡26⋅23≡8(mod9)
n=15:24≡1(mod15)⇒215≡(24)3⋅23≡8(mod15)
n=21:26≡1(mod21)⇒221≡(26)3⋅23≡8(mod21)
However, for n=25, we see that
210=1024≡−1⇒220≡1⇒225≡25≡7(mod25),
so 7 is the remainder when 225 is divided by 25 and 27 is the remainder when 2225 is divided by 225−1. This gives the desired counterexample.