Trump withdraws from 33% of Crypto cases! The New York Times reveals that half of the defendants have made donations or business dealings

The New York Times investigative report indicates that the Trump administration dismissed 33% of cryptocurrency cases during the Biden era, far higher than the 4% average across other industries. Of the 14 cryptocurrency investigations that were dismissed, over half of the defendants had established close ties with the government, including political donations or business dealings with Trump’s extensive cryptocurrency empire. SEC Commissioner Hester Peirce defended the dismissals, stating that these decisions should never have been brought in the first place.

33% vs 4%: The Hidden Interest Network Behind the Statistical Anomaly

(Source: The New York Times)

The New York Times investigation reveals a startling statistical anomaly. The Trump administration dismissed 33% of cryptocurrency cases during the Biden era, a figure significantly higher than the 4% industry average. This 8-fold difference is difficult to explain through normal policy adjustments, suggesting that the cryptocurrency industry received special treatment during Trump’s presidency.

Even more shocking is that among the 14 dismissed cryptocurrency investigations, over half of the defendants had established close relationships with the government. This pattern occurred before or after case resolutions, forming a clear cycle: donations or business dealings → case dismissed → further business cooperation. This pattern recurs across multiple cases, making “coincidence” an unconvincing explanation.

According to the New York Times, former President Trump and his family reportedly benefited from most of the dismissed or settled cryptocurrency cases. The dismissed cases involve transactions such as political donations or business connections with Trump’s large cryptocurrency empire. The complexity of this interest network far exceeds expectations, involving not only direct political donations but also business investments, technological collaborations, and ecosystem integrations.

The timing distribution of these dismissals is also noteworthy. Many cases were dismissed within months of Trump’s inauguration, aligning with his promise to become the “first cryptocurrency president.” On the day of his inauguration, SEC Chairman Gary Gensler resigned, and President Trump appointed cryptocurrency advocate Paul Atkins as his replacement. Subsequently, the SEC has dismissed or settled cases involving several presidential inaugural donors, including Coinbase, Ripple Labs, and Consensys.

Typical Case: The Disputed Dismissal of America’s Largest Cryptocurrency Exchange and Binance

The case involving America’s largest compliant cryptocurrency exchange exemplifies the “pay-to-play” pattern. The company’s lawsuit against the SEC was dismissed, but it is a supporter of Fairshake, a super PAC supporting cryptocurrency-friendly candidates in the 2024/2025 election cycle. Fairshake raised $260 million to support pro-cryptocurrency congressional candidates, with its spending on Republican candidates nearly double that on Democratic candidates. Additionally, the largest compliant US cryptocurrency exchange established Stand With Crypto, an organization that collectively supports legislators advocating for cryptocurrency-friendly legislation.

Binance’s case is even more dramatic. In May, a civil lawsuit filed by the SEC against Binance for operating an unregistered US-based exchange was dismissed. Months later, Binance founder CZ received a pardon, sparking accusations of corruption. According to the New York Times, after CZ helped Trump-supported World Liberty Financial develop and promote its USD1 stablecoin, the Binance case was resolved.

The NYT pointed out: “Just weeks before Binance’s case was dismissed, the company engaged in a $2 billion business deal using World Liberty’s digital currency. This deal is expected to generate tens of millions of dollars annually for Trump’s family.” The timing and the enormous amount involved make the causal relationship difficult to deny.

Network of Companies with Cases Dismissed and their Connections to Trump

America’s Largest Compliant Cryptocurrency Exchange: Donated $260 million through Fairshake super PAC; founded Stand With Crypto to support pro-crypto lawmakers

Binance: Helped develop USD1 stablecoin for World Liberty Financial; participated in a $2 billion business deal

Ripple, Consensys: Both were donors to Trump’s inauguration; their cases were dismissed or settled

Companies like Consensys, Cumberland, and Ripple show similar “pay-to-play” trends. These companies either donated to Trump’s political activities or established business ties with his family’s cryptocurrency ventures, then faced regulatory cases that were either dismissed or settled favorably. The consistency of this pattern leads The New York Times to conclude “pay-for-regulatory-relaxation.”

Defense Perspectives and Future Risk Assessments

However, not everyone agrees with the NYT’s conclusions. SEC Commissioner Hester M. Peirce defends these dismissals, stating “these decisions should never have been brought in the first place.” She added, “I believe the extreme actions were taken earlier, when some lawsuits were filed without legal basis.”

Peirce’s view presents an alternative narrative: under Gensler’s leadership, the Biden-era SEC has taken overly aggressive enforcement actions against the crypto industry, many cases being legally flawed from the start. From this perspective, the dismissals of these cases under Trump are not corrupt but corrections of overreach by the previous administration. This view has considerable support within the crypto community, with many practitioners believing Gensler’s “regulatory enforcement” stifles innovation.

Yet, even accepting this defense, it cannot explain why companies with close ties to Trump are so disproportionately involved in dismissed cases. If dismissals were purely based on legal reasons, why are cases involving companies with no connection to Trump less likely to be dismissed? This selective enforcement itself raises questions.

Most cases are dismissed and cannot be refiled; the new SEC Chair cannot reopen them. However, if Democrats regain power, future regulatory resistance might reemerge, which remains to be seen. Over the past year, Trump’s family cryptocurrency empire has expanded significantly, including Bitcoin mining, DeFi lending, meme coins, and stablecoins.

The conflict of interest issues have already begun influencing legislation. The Stablecoin Bill (Genius Bill) has nearly stalled due to conflicts of interest and has reappeared in ongoing discussions of the crypto market structure bill. Democrats are closely watching Trump’s interest in the crypto space and his push for regulation, which could limit future policy options.

In the long term, accusations of “money-for-favor” trading—whether true or not—have already damaged the credibility of Trump’s cryptocurrency policies. Even if the dismissals are legally sound, the timing and the high correlation of beneficiaries will continue to arouse public suspicion.