A quiet shift inside Washington’s regulatory machinery is now drawing public attention, as crypto enforcement in the United States appears to have slowed sharply under President Donald Trump’s second administration.
According to reporting by the New York Times, the change is not subtle. Since Trump returned to the White House, federal regulators – particularly the Securities and Exchange Commission – have eased off a significant share of crypto-related legal actions that were active at the time.
Key Takeaways
Crypto enforcement has eased significantly under the current administration
The pullback stands out compared with other industries
The White House denies any conflict of interest
What makes the shift controversial is not only its scale, but the concentration of reversals within a single industry.
A Statistical Outlier in Enforcement Behavior
When viewed in aggregate, crypto stands apart. The Times found that regulators backed away from a large portion of digital-asset cases inherited from the previous administration, while enforcement in other sectors largely continued as normal.
This divergence matters because the SEC has historically been consistent in carrying cases forward, regardless of political transitions. Pullbacks do occur, but broad retreats across one industry are rare. In this case, crypto-related actions were dismissed or softened at a far higher rate than cases tied to finance, health care, or other regulated sectors.
The result is a statistical imbalance that has raised eyebrows among legal observers.
Business Ties Complicate the Optics
Layered on top of the enforcement shift is the growing involvement of the Trump family in crypto-related ventures. The Times reported that a number of companies benefiting from regulatory relief later developed financial, political, or commercial relationships connected to the president or his family.
The report does not allege that regulators acted illegally. Instead, it argues that the overlap between softened enforcement and emerging business ties creates an appearance problem – particularly for an agency meant to operate independently of political influence.
In every crypto case identified as having a connection to Trump-linked businesses, regulators either paused proceedings or reduced pressure, according to the investigation.
Courts and Regulators Do Not Always Agree
In at least one major case, the SEC’s revised approach ran into resistance from the judiciary. After seeking to substantially reduce a court-imposed penalty against Ripple Labs following Trump’s return to office, the agency was blocked by a judge who questioned the sudden change in stance.
That moment underscored a broader theme: while regulators may shift priorities, courts are not obligated to follow suit, especially when reversals lack a clear legal justification.
A Contrast With the Previous Administration
The Times also highlighted a sharp contrast with earlier years. During the Biden administration, the SEC did not voluntarily dismiss crypto cases inherited from Trump’s first term. That comparison has fueled arguments that the current pullback reflects more than routine policy recalibration.
Of the crypto cases carried over from the prior administration, roughly a third were dismissed or scaled back, compared with a minimal percentage of cases in other industries.
White House Rejects Conflict Claims
The administration has firmly pushed back against suggestions of favoritism. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said the regulatory shift aligns with the president’s stated goal of turning the U.S. into a global hub for crypto innovation.
From the White House’s perspective, easing enforcement is framed as economic strategy, not selective treatment. Lawyers representing Trump-related businesses have likewise denied any link between private interests and regulatory outcomes.
A Question of Trust, Not Just Policy
At its core, the controversy is less about individual cases and more about institutional credibility. Regulatory agencies rely on consistency to maintain trust, especially when industries intersect with political power.
The New York Times investigation does not claim definitive wrongdoing. What it presents instead is a pattern – one that critics say risks blurring the line between policy direction and preferential treatment, and one that places crypto regulation at the center of a growing debate over political influence in financial oversight.
Whether the enforcement shift proves to be a temporary policy phase or a lasting realignment, it has already changed how Washington’s approach to crypto is being perceived – both inside and outside the industry.
