A high-profile segment on CBS’s “60 Minutes,” followed by extensive print coverage, spotlighted how President Trump pardoned Binance founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao after his company became financially intertwined with Trump’s own crypto venture, World Liberty Financial. The reports drew attention to the overlap between Zhao’s admitted money-laundering violations, the multibillion-dollar Binance-linked investment that boosted Trump’s enterprise, and the timing of the pardon, which critics say raises questions about governance and influence even absent proof of a direct quid pro quo.
The legal story started years earlier. In 2023, Changpeng “CZ” Zhao pleaded guilty in U.S. federal court to failing to maintain an effective anti–money-laundering program at Binance. The company agreed to pay more than $4.3 billion in penalties, and Zhao served a four-month prison sentence after stepping down as CEO. Regulators said Binance’s weak controls allowed illicit funds to move through the exchange, including transactions tied to ransomware, drug trafficking, sanctions evasion, and groups the U.S. labels as terrorists. On October 23, 2025, President Trump granted Zhao a full and unconditional pardon, with aides arguing he had been swept up in what they called the Biden administration’s “war on cryptocurrency” and noting he was never charged with investor fraud.
By then, Trump’s own crypto business was barely a year old but already deeply intertwined with Binance. The Trump family launched World Liberty Financial in September 2024, retaining a controlling stake and a large share of future revenue. In early 2025, the firm introduced USD1, a stablecoin backed by dollar-linked assets such as U.S. Treasuries and cash. Within weeks, an Abu Dhabi–backed fund announced it would use roughly $2 billion worth of USD1 to finance a major Binance investment, instantly boosting World Liberty’s scale and credibility. That deal, and Binance’s role more broadly, became a key pillar of World Liberty’s business model and income stream by the time Zhao’s pardon arrived.
Supporters of the pardon describe Zhao as a cooperative entrepreneur who paid a steep price during a period of overzealous crypto enforcement. They emphasize the absence of classic investor-fraud charges, argue that the government never identified defrauded retail customers, and say clearing his record will help keep crypto innovation onshore. Critics, including some Republican lawmakers and nonpartisan watchdogs, counter that the case was never just about technical paperwork. They point to prosecutors’ descriptions of how Binance’s failures made it easier for criminal and extremist networks to move money that ultimately fuels real-world harm and argue that wiping away Zhao’s conviction risks telling powerful actors that serious compliance violations can be washed away if the right relationships are in place.
The partisan overlay adds another layer of noise. Right-leaning allies and friendly outlets have cast the backlash as a “hit job” by Democrats and liberal media, and fringe commentary goes further, recasting earlier enforcement actions and current scrutiny as a coordinated “deep state” effort to sabotage Trump-aligned crypto projects. More neutral reporting keeps returning to the timeline: Zhao’s plea and penalties, the rapid rise of World Liberty, the $2 billion USD1–Binance deal, and the later pardon. That sequence is now being compared to earlier controversial clemency decisions by presidents of both parties as analysts ask whether the guardrails around presidential pardons are equipped for the kinds of financial entanglements modern presidents bring with them.
Why it matters: The Zhao pardon sits where presidential clemency, financial regulation, and personal enrichment collide. A neutral assessment weighs the gravity of the money-laundering violations, the depth of World Liberty Financial’s dependence on Binance-linked deals, and the different stories outlets tell about why the pardon happened. It also asks whether this episode pushes the system further toward a world in which politically connected billionaires with business ties to a president can expect leniency that ordinary defendants and smaller firms are unlikely to see.
Claim: Zhao “did nothing wrong” and was punished only because of the Biden administration’s hostility to cryptocurrency.
Origin: Trump’s public comments defending the pardon and supportive commentary on Fox News, Newsmax, and pro-Trump social media.
Verdict: ❌ False
Rationale: Zhao pleaded guilty in federal court to failing to maintain an effective anti–money-laundering program at Binance and told the judge, “I failed here… I deeply regret my failure, and I am sorry.” Prosecutors and Treasury officials detailed how Binance’s lapses allowed illicit funds to move through the platform, including funds tied to terrorism, drug trafficking, and child exploitation. That record contradicts the assertion that he “did nothing wrong,” even if reasonable people can debate whether the original sentence and penalties were proportionate. Source: Associated Press
Claim: The pardon had no meaningful connection to Zhao’s or Binance’s financial ties to World Liberty Financial.
Origin: White House statements emphasizing Zhao’s cooperation and claims from Trump allies that ethics concerns are “manufactured” by political opponents.
Verdict: ❓ Unsupported
Rationale: Public reporting shows that a Gulf-backed fund used roughly
Insert claim → evidence → verdict items here (assembler populates).
Claim: The Biden administration’s “war on crypto” singled out Zhao without evidence of real-world harm.
Origin: White House statements under Trump, sympathetic op-eds, and commentary on Fox News and conservative talk radio.
Verdict: ⚠️ Misleading
Rationale: Biden-era regulators did pursue aggressive enforcement against several crypto firms, including Binance. However, court filings and Treasury statements describe concrete harms from Binance’s compliance failures, including transactions tied to sanctioned entities and criminal organizations. The phrase “war on crypto” is rhetorical and obscures the distinction between legitimate enforcement actions and hostility to the entire asset class. It is fair to debate regulatory strategy, but the suggestion that there was “no real harm” is at odds with the government’s documented findings and Zhao’s own guilty plea. Source: Reuters
Claim: CBS’s “60 Minutes” fabricated or deceptively edited evidence about World Liberty’s links to Binance to smear Trump.
Origin: Social-media posts and commentary in pro-Trump media reacting to the CBS segment on the pardon.
Verdict: ❓ Unsupported
Rationale: The “60 Minutes” report relied on public documents, prior investigative reporting, and on-camera interviews with ethics experts and lawmakers. Critics dispute the framing and emphasis but have not produced credible evidence that specific quotes, documents, or figures were fabricated or altered. Without such proof, accusations of fabrication remain unsupported opinion rather than substantiated fact. Source: CBS News
Rationale: The Binance case began years before Trump’s second term and included public investigations and court proceedings under multiple administrations. No credible evidence shows intelligence agencies or a “deep state” conspiring to target Trump supporters via the Zhao case. Enforcement decisions were documented in plea agreements, judicial opinions, and regulatory filings that predate World Liberty’s launch. Source: U.S. Department of Justice
Rationale: Major outlets, including Reuters, AP, CNN, CBS, and others, have reported on the Zhao pardon alongside ongoing coverage of other political controversies. There is no evidence of a coordinated decision to inflate this story in order to bury separate Democratic scandals. The intensity of coverage is more plausibly explained by the unusual combination of a global money-laundering case, a presidential family crypto venture, and a high-profile pardon than by a hidden media conspiracy. Source: Associated Press
Rationale: Public records and mainstream reporting describe World Liberty as a Trump-family–branded crypto venture with heavy backing from Gulf investors and crypto industry figures. While those relationships raise serious conflict-of-interest and influence questions, there is no evidence that foreign intelligence agencies own or control the firm. Conflating financial entanglements with covert intelligence operations goes beyond available facts. Source: New York Times
Baseline (prior statement): “We’re going to drain the swamp. No one will be above the law—not the powerful, not the wealthy, not the well connected.” (Trump campaign and early-term anti-corruption messaging.)
Follow-up (current case): In defending Zhao’s pardon, Trump and his spokespeople suggested he had been unfairly targeted in a “war on crypto,” minimized the significance of Binance’s money-laundering violations, and brushed off questions about World Liberty’s $2 billion Binance-linked deal as partisan attacks.
Assessment: Severity 4 — Trump’s decision to erase the conviction of a billionaire whose company underpins a multibillion-dollar investment tied to his own family’s venture stands in sharp tension with his earlier promises to crack down on special treatment for the powerful. Even absent proof of an explicit quid pro quo, the combination of personal financial benefit and clemency for a corporate offender represents a substantial departure from “no one is above the law” rhetoric.
| Outlet | Bar | Score |
|---|
| Outlet | Spin | Factual integrity | Strategic silence | Media distortion |
|---|
Hyperlink the example images like your Copilot output (e.g., Example link).
billion USD1 deal) alongside highlighted excerpts from filings and the CBS interview. B-roll of Trump-branded rallies and World Liberty promotional imagery visually reinforces the conflict-of-interest narrative.