• Paul Grewal says the NYT headline misleads, as the article admits no evidence of SEC impropriety or political pressure.
• Report notes SEC dropped over 60% of crypto cases, but also confirms no White House or firm influence was found.
• Critics argue enforcement rollback was predictable after leadership changes, not political favoritism toward crypto companies.

Paul Grewal has criticized The New York Times for what he says is a misleading narrative surrounding the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC) pullback from crypto enforcement.

The Coinbase CLO (Chief Legal Officer) argues that the paper’s own reporting undermines its headline and broader narrative.

Sponsored

Coinbase CLO Paul Grewal Pushes Back on NYT’s SEC Crypto Enforcement Narrative

In a post on X (Twitter), Grewal highlighted a key disclosure included in the online version of the Times’ December 14 investigation into the SEC’s shifting stance toward digital assets following Donald Trump’s return to the White House in January 2025.

According to the article, reporters found “no indication that the president or the White House pressured the SEC to go easy on specific crypto firms,” and “did not find evidence that the firms had tried to influence the cases against them through donations or business ties to the Trump family.”

“I do appreciate the reporter’s candor in the comments to the online version of the story,” Grewal wrote. “It shows the headline and the overall narrative to be even more twisted.”

The Times investigation documented a sharp decline in crypto enforcement actions under the SEC during Trump’s second term.

The report found that the agency eased up on more than 60% of the crypto-related cases it inherited, pausing or abandoning lawsuits against several high-profile firms. These included Gemini, run by the Winklevoss twins, and Binance, whose case was dropped entirely.

The paper framed the pullback as unusual, noting that it is rare for the SEC to retreat so broadly from enforcement against a single industry.

Sponsored

While the article noted that some of the firms that benefited had executives or affiliates who donated to Trump’s political operation, it simultaneously stated that there was no evidence of presidential intervention or improper influence.

The SEC also rejected claims of favoritism, stating that legal and policy concerns drove the shift in enforcement. These include questions about the agency’s authority over a significant portion of the crypto market.

Critics Say SEC Enforcement Rollback Was Predictable, Not Politically Driven

Grewal’s critique follows broader pushback from crypto policy commentators who say the Times failed to provide critical historical context.

Alex Thorn, head of firmwide research at Galaxy, argued that the story relies on the false assumption that the prior administration’s aggressive enforcement campaign represented a normal regulatory posture.

Sponsored

According to Thorn, the Biden-era SEC advanced novel and highly contested interpretations of securities law to pursue widespread enforcement against crypto firms, an approach that faced:

• Years of bipartisan criticism,
• Repeated court challenges, and
• Public dissents from Republican commissioners Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda.

When those commissioners moved from a dissenting minority to a controlling majority after Gary Gensler stepped down in January, Thorn argues the resulting policy reversal was entirely predictable.

Sponsored

“It’s not ‘irregular’ at all for the SEC to drop these cases,” Thorn wrote in a separate post. “If you overturn the underlying premises, of course the overlaid cases must fall away.”

The Times acknowledged that the SEC’s current Republican commissioners opposed many crypto lawsuits long before Trump returned to office.

Still, critics argue that this context was overshadowed by a narrative that implied political impropriety without providing evidence.

The dispute highlights a growing rift between traditional media coverage and the crypto industry’s interpretation of regulatory changes in Washington.

As the SEC pivots away from regulation by enforcement toward clearer rulemaking, the debate highlights a central question for US crypto policy: whether legal and philosophical shifts inside the agency can be accurately distinguished from political influence in the public discourse.

Disclaimer