NYT Investigation Reveals: Crypto Cases Were Dropped Under Trump’s Second Term

Regulatory scrutiny on digital assets took a sharp turn during the last administration, according to a bombshell report.

The Enforcement Slowdown

A major newspaper's deep dive suggests federal momentum against cryptocurrency firms stalled. The investigation points to a pattern where active cases—some involving significant sums and high-profile projects—simply lost steam. Critics argue this created a regulatory gray zone, letting some operators off the hook while the rules for everyone else remained frustratingly opaque.

Politics Meets Protocol

The timing raises eyebrows. The reported drop-off coincided with a period of explosive growth in decentralized finance and NFT mania. For industry advocates, it was a welcome respite from what they saw as regulatory overreach. For traditional finance watchdogs, it looked like a free pass—another case of Wall Street's old playbook being rewritten with blockchain, where the well-connected find a way to sidestep the rules meant for everyone else.

The fallout is still being calculated. The legacy of that period influences today's regulatory landscape, as agencies now play catch-up. It's a stark reminder that in crypto, the most volatile asset isn't Bitcoin—it's regulatory clarity.

A new report from The New York Times has stirred controversy by claiming that President Donald Trump and his family may have financially benefited from the settlement or rollback of several crypto cases during his second term. According to the report, a noticeable number of enforcement actions against crypto firms were either dropped or softened after Trump returned to the White House, raising concerns about conflicts of interest.

Sharp Shift in Crypto Enforcement

The NYT investigation found that more than 60% of crypto cases active at the start of Trump’s second term were later paused, reduced, or dismissed. This level of pullback stood out sharply when compared to enforcement trends in other industries, where only a small fraction of cases were dropped. During the same period, regulators continued to pursue non-crypto cases as usual, making the crypto sector an exception rather than the norm.

The report described this shift as unusual, noting that the Securities and Exchange Commission has historically avoided backing away from large clusters of cases within a single industry.

Links to Donations and Business Ties

According to the NYT, several of the eased or dismissed cases involved companies or individuals who later developed political or business connections with TRUMP or his family. The report alleges that some legal outcomes coincided with donations or ties to the Trump family’s expanding crypto-related ventures.

One example cited was a crypto company founded by the Winklevoss twins. The firm reportedly faced a federal lawsuit that stalled after the administration changed. Around the same time, the SEC also dropped its case against Binance entirely. Another high-profile shift involved Ripple Labs, where the SEC later sought to reduce a court-ordered penalty following Trump’s return to office.

Crypto Cases Treated Differently

The report claims that crypto cases were dismissed at a much higher rate than cases involving other industries. Of the 23 crypto cases inherited from the previous administration, the SEC reportedly pulled back from 14. Eight of those involved defendants who later formed financial or political links tied to Trump or his family. In contrast, only around 4% of non-crypto cases inherited during the same period were dismissed, highlighting what the NYT described as a clear imbalance.

Pushback on the NYT’s Framing

Not everyone agrees with the report’s conclusions. Crypto analyst Alex Thorn strongly criticized the NYT’s framing, arguing that it ignores the context of the prior administration’s crypto stance. He says the earlier crackdown on crypto was far from normal and had been openly criticized for years by bipartisan lawmakers and even federal courts.

Thorn points to past moments when Congress, including Democrats, moved to overturn aggressive SEC policies tied to crypto, showing that resistance to that approach was widespread. In his view, the recent easing of enforcement reflects a correction of an extreme regulatory phase rather than favoritism or personal gain.