CZ says US crypto rivals tried to block Trump pardon
Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao said US rival crypto exchanges opposed his request for a Trump pardon granted in October 2025. Speaking on the Crypto Banter podcast, CZ claimed some competitors didn’t want him pardoned because they feared Binance could return to the US market. He admitted he has no concrete evidence, saying he only “believed” pushback may have come from competitors, and “I don’t have concrete evidence of any of it.”
The Trump pardon has renewed debate around Binance’s US future after earlier legal and compliance actions. CZ pleaded guilty in 2023 for failing to maintain an effective anti-money-laundering (AML) program. Binance also reached a $4.3 billion settlement with US authorities in 2023 tied to sanctions and money-transmission rules.
Separately, Binance and CZ received recent court relief, including dismissals of parts of lawsuits filed by victims and relatives in terrorism-related cases. Reuters reported judges found plaintiffs did not plausibly allege culpable involvement or intent by Binance or Zhao, though some claims were allowed to be amended.
For traders, this adds an additional “Trump pardon” narrative layer—combining political-clemency optics with ongoing regulatory and litigation overhang—while CZ’s lack of proof may limit immediate impact on fundamentals.
Neutral
CZ’s comments are sentiment-relevant because they frame the Trump pardon as potentially blocked by US rivals, which could revive speculation about Binance’s future US operations. However, the lack of concrete evidence weakens any direct, verifiable catalyst for immediate repricing. Meanwhile, the article also reminds traders of ongoing regulatory gravity (2023 AML guilty plea; $4.3B settlement) and that recent court outcomes were mixed (dismissals but room to amend).
Historically, clemency- or political-led Binance/CZ headlines often cause short-lived risk-on moves in majors tied to general market optimism, but longer-term price impact typically depends on concrete regulatory actions (licensing, enforcement posture, settlement terms) rather than allegations. Netting both sides—renewed narrative versus weak proof and continuing legal overhang—the expected market effect is neutral.