Physical Address
304 North Cardinal St.
Dorchester Center, MA 02124
Paul Grewal criticized New York Times For what he described as a misleading narrative about the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) of the United States withdrawing from the application of strict regulations on digital currencies.
Coinbase’s legal chief explained that the newspaper’s report itself undermined its headline and the overall narrative of the article.
Sponsored
Sponsored
Coinbase’s Chief Legal Counsel, Paul Grewal, responds to the New York Times’ account of the SEC’s enforcement of cryptocurrency regulations.
In a place on
The article explained that the reporters found “no evidence that the president or the White House pressured the SEC to ease restrictions on specific cryptocurrency companies” and “found no evidence that these companies tried to influence the cases against them through donations or business ties to the Trump family.”
Grewal wrote that he appreciated the journalist’s candor in the comments on the online version of the story, saying it “shows that the headline and the overall narrative have become more distorted.”
The Times investigation documented it A sharp decline In anti-crypto enforcement actions by the SEC during Trump’s second term.
The report showed that the authority has mitigated more than 60% of the cases related to the digital currencies it inherited, and also suspended or abandoned the proceedings against several prominent companies, including Gemini run by the Winklevoss twinsand Binance that The case against her was dropped entirely.
The newspaper presented this withdrawal as unusual, noting that it is rare that the SEC withdraws in such a broad way from the enforcement of laws against a single industrial sector.
Sponsored
Sponsored
The article stated that although certain companies with directors or partners who made donations to Trump’s political operation benefited, at the same time he stressed that there was no evidence of presidential interference or illegal influence.
The SEC also rejected allegations of favoritism, Demonstrated Legal and political issues have led to a change in enforcement, including doubts about the authority’s powers over most of the digital currency market.
Critics say the decline in SEC enforcement was expected, not politically driven
Grewal’s criticism came in the context of broader responses from cryptocurrency policy analysts who said the Times failed to provide the necessary historical context.
Alex Thorne, Galaxy’s head of research, argued that the story rests on a false assumption that the previous administration’s aggressive crackdown on enforcement represented a normal regulatory norm.
Sponsored
Sponsored
According to Thorne, the SEC under Biden has introduced new and very controversial interpretations of securities laws with the aim of pursuing a broad enforcement of laws against cryptocurrency companies, an approach that has faced:
- Years of bipartisan criticism,
- Frequent legal challenges,
- Public objections from Republican commissioners Hester Pierce and Mark Uyeda.
When those commissioners went from a dissenting minority to a controlling majority after Gary Gensler resigned in January, Thoron argues that the resulting policy change was entirely expected.
Sponsored
Sponsored
“It is not ‘unusual’ for the SEC to drop these cases,” Thoron said in a separate post.
The Times acknowledged that the current Republican commissioners of the SEC oppose several cryptocurrency lawsuits before Trump returns to office.
However, critics argue that this context has been overshadowed by a narrative that suggests political integrity without providing evidence.
These controversies present a growing gap between traditional media coverage and the cryptocurrency industry’s interpretation of regulatory changes in Washington.
As the SEC moves away from regulation through enforcement toward more explicit regulation, the discussion highlights a central question for US cryptocurrency policy: whether legal and ideological changes at the SEC can be carefully distinguished from political influence in the public debate.
