Paul Grewal criticized The New York Times for what he calls a misleading narrative about the alleged withdrawal of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) from crypto enforcement.
The Chief Legal Officer (CLO) of Coinbase says the newspaper contradicts itself with the headline and the overall story.
Coinbase CLO Paul Grewal responds to NYT’s SEC crypto enforcement narrative
In a post on X (formerly Twitter), Grewal pointed to an important revelation in the online version of the Times' investigation from December 14 regarding the changing policy of the SEC on digital assets after Donald Trump returned to the White House in January 2025.
According to the article, the journalists “found no evidence that the president or the White House exerted pressure on the SEC to be more lenient toward specific crypto companies,” and “no evidence that these companies tried to influence the cases against them through donations or business ties to the Trump family.”
“I appreciate the openness of the journalist in the comments on the online article,” Grewal wrote. “It shows that the headline and the overall story are even more distorted.”
The Times' investigation showed that the number of enforcement actions by the SEC against crypto companies has sharply decreased in Trump's second term.
The report revealed that the regulator has dropped more than 60% of ongoing crypto cases, pausing or halting lawsuits against multiple well-known companies. This included Gemini, led by the Winklevoss brothers, and Binance, whose case was fully closed.
The newspaper described this withdrawal as particularly noteworthy, as it is rare for the SEC to so clearly withdraw from enforcement in one sector.
Although the article mentioned that some companies benefited from ties or donations to Trump's political organization, it also indicated that there is no evidence of interference by the president or inappropriate influence.
The SEC also denied favoritism. They stated that legal and policy concerns were the reason for the adjusted policy. This includes questions about the SEC's powers over most of the crypto market.
Critics say that the SEC's withdrawal from enforcement was predictable, not politically driven
Grewal's criticism follows broader remarks from crypto policy commentators, who say that the Times misses important historical context.
Alex Thorn, head of research at Galaxy, indicated that the article assumes that the previous policy – the aggressive stance of the regulator – was normal.
According to Thorn, the SEC under Biden adopted new and very controversial interpretations of the securities law to aggressively prosecute crypto companies. This approach faced:
Years of criticism from both political sides,
Multiple lawsuits, and
Open opposition from Republican commissioners such as Hester Peirce and Mark Uyeda.
When these commissioners became a majority from a minority in early January, after Gary Gensler's departure, Thorn called the policy change completely predictable.
“It is not 'irregular' at all for the SEC to drop these cases,” Thorn wrote in a separate message. “If you change the underlying principles, you must of course also terminate the ancillary cases.”
The Times acknowledged that the current Republican commissioners were against many crypto cases long before Trump's return.
Yet critics argue that this context was overshadowed by a story suggesting political influence without evidence.
The conflict highlights a growing divide between traditional media and the crypto industry's view on regulatory changes in Washington.
Now that the SEC opts for clear rules instead of enforcement, the discussion revolves around a central question in U.S. crypto policy: can legal and substantive changes within the agency be clearly distinguished from political influence in the public debate?
