Key Highlights Trump’s second-term pardons reveal a new “Crypto Clemency Doctrine” based on ideology and political utility, not legal merit. Crypto figures framed as regulatory martyrs or strategic partners received pardons, while those tied to retail harm did not. The pardons of Ross Ulbricht and Changpeng Zhao contrast sharply with the continued incarceration of Sam Bankman-Fried. The White House now seems to function as a de facto final court of appeal for crypto elites with political access. The second term of U.S. President Donald J. Trump has moved far beyond the deregulatory agenda of his first term. In a move that has fundamentally rewritten the intersection of federal criminal justice and the digital asset industry, the White House has operationalized the presidential pardon power as a tool for ideological signaling and strategic transaction. The result is a bifurcated justice system for crypto entrepreneurs: one track for those who can be useful to the Make America Great Again (MAGA) ecosystem, and another for those deemed political liabilities. This report provides a deep-dive investigation into what we term the “Crypto Clemency Doctrine”. This is a framework that has liberated figures like Silk Road Founder Ross Ulbricht and Binance Co-Founder Changpeng Zhao (CZ), while leaving FTX Co-Founder Sam Bankman-Fried (SBF) to wither in a federal cell at FCI Terminal Island. A deep dive into the pardons issued during Trump’s second term reveals that executive mercy is no longer a tool for balancing an unjust judicial system; it is a commodity distributed based on ideological compliance, victim profile, and political networking. This report exposes the untold story behind this disparity: a lucrative financial feedback loop involving the Trump family’s own crypto venture that paved the way for CZ’s release, and a catastrophic, unauthorized jailhouse media strategy by SBF (involving Tucker Carlson and a stint in solitary confinement) that backfired spectacularly. The Crypto Clemency Doctrine The Trump administration’s approach to justice is not arbitrary. It follows a rigorous, if unwritten, logic. An analysis of the 1,600+ pardons issued since January 2025 show two distinct types of privileged defendants eligible for the President’s mercy: Firstly, the martyrs, whose prosecutions can be framed as “Deep State weaponization.” These are figures whose crimes are interpreted by the Trump administration as acts of rebellion against an overreaching government. Ross Ulbricht is the primary figure of this group. Second are the partners who offer financial or political benefit. These are wealthy executives whose businesses align with the administration’s or the Trump family’s financial interests. Changpeng Zhao fits the mold in this category. In contrast, the denial of Sam Bankman-Fried represents the doctrine’s exclusion parameters. Despite SBF’s aggressive, behind-the-scenes attempts to pivot politically, including an infamous unauthorized interview with Tucker Carlson, he remains the narrative’s “Villain.” It stems from his irrevocable branding as a “Democrat mega-donor” and the direct financial ruin he brought upon retail investors, a core demographic of the Trump coalition. The Mechanics of Mercy: A Structural Shift To understand how these decisions are made, one must look at the dismantling of the traditional pardon process. Historically, the Office of the Pardon Attorney (OPA) within the Department of Justice served as a meritocratic filter, reviewing petitions based on time served, remorse, and behavior. Under the current regime, this bureaucratic process has been largely bypassed in favor of a “network-based” approach driven by media personalities, high-dollar donors, and Trump-adjacent lobbyists. During the 2024 campaign, the Trump team successfully framed crypto enforcement as a “war on innovation” led by the Biden-era Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Department of Justice (DOJ). This rhetorical shift allowed the President to categorize convicts into a binary system: The martyrs: Technical or regulatory offenders (e.g., CZ’s anti-money laundering failures, Arthur Hayes’ Bank Secrecy Act violations). The villains: Fraudsters who harmed “real people” (e.g., SBF). This distinction allows the administration to argue that crimes against the state (regulatory violations) are invalid, while crimes against the individual (theft) remain punishable, provided the thief is a Democrat. The Pay-to-Play Perception: The Case of Roger Ver The commoditization of access is best exemplified by the case of Roger Ver, the early industry evangelist known as “Bitcoin Jesus.” In 2024, Ver was facing indictment for tax evasion related to his renunciation of U.S. citizenship; a charge that historically carries significant prison time. Ver bypassed the typical legal meat grinder. Instead of relying solely on criminal defense attorneys, investigations reveal that Ver’s team retained Roger Stone, the infamous political operative and longtime Trump confidant. Reports indicate Ver paid Stone a lobbying fee of $600,000 to advocate for his case directly to the administration. The result was a stunning reversal of DOJ priorities. Rather than a prison sentence, Ver secured a favorable settlement that involved a monetary fine but no incarceration, effectively buying his freedom. For the crypto industry, the message was clear: freedom has a price tag, and the currency is “influence.” This case established the precedent that legal jeopardy could be neutralized through the right political channels, a lesson Changpeng Zhao would later apply with even greater success. The Ross Ulbricht Case Study: The Ideological Signal On January 21, 2025, his first full day in office, President Trump fulfilled a signature campaign promise by issuing a full and unconditional pardon to Silk Road founder Ross Ulbricht. This move was the administration’s “Day One” signal to the libertarian wing of the GOP. Ulbricht had served 12 years of a double life sentence plus 40 years for running the Silk Road darknet market. While prosecutors argued he was a drug kingpin who facilitated deadly transactions, the crypto community viewed him as a software developer who created a neutral, decentralized platform. By pardoning Ulbricht, Trump bridged the gap between his MAGA base and the Libertarian voters he courted during the election. During his campaign, Trump was explicit : “If you vote for me, on day one, I will commute the sentence of Ross Ulbricht to a sentence of time served. He’s already served 11 years. We’re going to get him home.” Trump exceeded this promise by granting a full pardon rather than a commutation. In a post on his Truth Social platform, Trump justified the decision by attacking the prosecutors: “The scum that worked to convict him were some of the same lunatics who were involved in the modern-day weaponization of government against me. He was given two life sentences, plus 40 years. Ridiculous!” Why Ulbricht Over SBF? The distinction is rooted in the ‘Victim Profile.’ Ulbricht facilitated voluntary transactions between consenting adults. While illegal, there was no “theft” in the traditional sense; users got what they paid for. In the Trump moral hierarchy, facilitating vice (drugs) is a forgivable libertarian technicality; stealing customer funds (fraud) is an unforgivable sin against the populace. Arthur Hayes: The Outlaw Architect Returns The pardon of Arthur Hayes in March 2025 further illustrates the administration’s willingness to forgive “crimes against the state.” The Co-Founder of BitMEX, Hayes was hailed as the man who brought Wall Street derivatives to the masses, inventing the Perpetual Swap, which is a tool that allows traders to hold leveraged positions indefinitely. Hayes’ downfall wasn’t due to a fraud scandal like SBF’s; but it was a result of a head-on clash with the U.S. government over the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA). In 2020, the DOJ accused Hayes of failing to implement Anti-Money Laundering (AML) and Know Your Customer (KYC) protocols, effectively allowing U.S. citizens to bypass regulations via VPNs. After surrendering to the FBI in Hawaii in 2021, he pleaded guilty and was sentenced to six months of home confinement and two years of probation. However, in March 2025, Hayes received a full Presidential Pardon, alongside his co-founders Ben Delo and Samuel Reed. This pardon fully exonerated him of his criminal record, allowing him to return to the global stage as a legitimate financier. The administration viewed Hayes’ crime as a “process crime”, i.e. a failure to file paperwork, rather than malicious conduct, aligning him with the “Martyr” archetype. Changpeng Zhao: The Corporate-State Synthesis If Ulbricht’s pardon was ideological, the October 2025 pardon of Binance Co-Founder Changpeng Zhao was unapologetically transactional. This decision sits at the heart of the “exclusive” revelations regarding the Trump family’s business entanglements. CZ had pleaded guilty to failing to maintain an effective anti-money laundering program and served four months in prison. Yet, in October 2025, he was granted a full pardon. The public justification was that he was a victim of “regulatory overreach.” However, deep research reveals a far more complex reality. The controversy surrounding CZ centers on the synergy between Binance and World Liberty Financial (WLF), a decentralized finance (DeFi) project promoted by Donald Trump and his sons. The investment: In March 2025, MGX, a state-owned investment firm from Abu Dhabi, invested $2 billion into Binance. The stablecoin: Crucially, this massive capital injection was not made in US dollars, but in “USD1”, the stablecoin issued by World Liberty Financial. The benefit: As the issuer of USD1, the Trump family venture stood to gain millions in minting fees, transaction volume, and reserve interest from this $2 billion liquidity event. The tech transfer: Further investigations by Bloomberg and The Wall Street Journal indicated that Binance developers may have assisted in writing the initial code for the WLF project. When pardoning CZ, Trump famously stated , “I don’t even know who he is,” adding that all he knew was that the Binance leader was a victim of a “witch hunt” by the former Biden administration. This effectively decriminalized Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) violations retrospectively, signaling to offshore exchanges that compliance is secondary to strategic partnership with the Executive. Moreover, this was also one of the most controversial pardons of the term. Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA) introduced a sweeping bill aimed at curbing political profiteering, stating, “We have a president who is enriching himself and his family in an obscene wealth that is unprecedented in American history. People need to wake up to what’s going on – it’s corruption right before our very eyes.” Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) posted, “One week after Trump pardoned Binance’s owner… Binance starts promoting Trump crypto.” The next day, he added a single word: “payback.” Despite the backlash, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the decision , insisting, “Neither the president nor his family have ever engaged, or will ever engage, in conflicts of interest. The Biden administration’s war on crypto is over.” The Pariah: Sam Bankman-Fried’s Failed Redemption As of early 2026, Sam Bankman-Fried remains in the Terminal Island Federal Correctional Institution. His continued incarceration is not merely due to the severity of his crimes, but the result of a catastrophic failure to navigate the new political reality. The “Democrat Mega-Donor” Problem: SBF’s $40 million in public donations to Democratic candidates in 2022 made him the ultimate foil for Trump. To pardon SBF would be to pardon the “Deep State’s” favorite financier. It would destroy Trump’s narrative that the FTX collapse was a “woke” fraud enabled by the Biden administration. The “Tucker Carlson” Disaster The untold story of SBF’s failed pardon bid involves a desperate, unauthorized media play. In March 2025, SBF conducted a video interview from prison with Tucker Carlson. This was a “Hail Mary” attempt to reach Trump’s base directly. The pitch: SBF attempted to rebrand himself as a “secret Republican,” telling Carlson that he donated “dark money” to the GOP and was targeted by the Biden administration for opposing the woke agenda. He explicitly stated that he didn’t think he’s a criminal. The backfire: The interview was unauthorized by the Bureau of Prisons. As a result, SBF was thrown into solitary confinement immediately after it aired. Trump was unimpressed. He values “loud and proud” loyalty. SBF’s admission that he hid his Republican support to avoid “bad press” was viewed as cowardice, not strategy. Unlike Ryan Salame, SBF had no receipts to prove his loyalty. In another desperate attempt to align with Trump, SBF took to social media via a proxy to praise Trump’s pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, a convicted drug trafficker. SBF wrote that Hernández was “one of the kindest and most dedicated people” he had met (they were jailed together at MDC Brooklyn). This sycophancy failed to move the needle; instead, it highlighted SBF’s poor judgment. Later, in a December 2025 interview with The New York Times, President Trump explicitly shut the door on SBF. Trump stated he had no plans to pardon SBF, grouping him with Sean “Diddy” Combs and Nicolas Maduro as figures who would receive no mercy. He cited the massive losses to retail investors as the primary reason. The Control Group: Salame and the Republican Shield To prove that political affiliation is a determinative factor in the administration’s clemency calculus, one must look at SBF’s former colleague, Ryan Salame. As the former co-CEO of FTX Digital Markets, Salame pleaded guilty to similar campaign finance violations. The key difference? Salame was a massive, public donor to the Republican Party, giving over $23 million to GOP candidates in 2022. Salame publicly argued he was targeted because he was a Republican. He leaned into the MAGA aesthetic, changing his LinkedIn status to “Inmate” at FCI Cumberland and trolling the DOJ online. As a result, Salame is widely viewed as a “Good FTX Executive” in the Trump White House. His release date has been moved up, and he is considered a prime candidate for a full pardon, serving as the “control group” that proves SBF’s failure was political, not just legal. Institutional and Market Implications The divergence in these cases has created a new, unwritten regulatory compact in the United States. For founders, it implies that judicial independence is a myth. The final stage of any legal defense is now political lobbying. Access to the “Trump orbit” (via figures like Roger Stone or investments in WLF) is more valuable than a top-tier legal defense team. For markets, the CZ pardon acted as a massive “Buy” signal. The market interpreted it as the end of the regulatory crackdown, fueling a resurgence in offshore crypto activity, provided those entities pay homage to the new administration. Overall, the White House has effectively become a supreme court of appeals where “freedom” is a line item on a political balance sheet. The “Crypto Clemency Doctrine” suggests that crimes are only crimes if they are committed by political enemies. Conclusion: The Value of a Villain Sam Bankman-Fried sits in a cell not because his crimes were uniquely heinous (though they were substantial) but because he is worth more to the Trump administration as a prisoner than as a free man. In the political economy of 2026, SBF serves as the essential villain. His incarceration allows the administration to deflect accusations of being “soft on crypto crime” while simultaneously liberating wealthy allies like CZ and ideological symbols like Ulbricht. SBF is the “Loser” in a world that only rewards “Winners.” While Ulbricht and Zhao walk free, SBF remains the permanent face of the “corrupt old guard,” a necessary ghost in the machine of the new crypto-order.