CZ alleges U.S. exchange rivals lobbied against his Trump pardon
He offered no concrete evidence and pointed to a March Alabama case dismissal as separate legal relief.
Binance co-founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao said perceived U.S.-based exchange competitors pushed back on his presidential pardon bid because they feared it could reopen a path for Binance to return to the U.S. market. Zhao said he has no “concrete evidence” of lobbying, while separately citing a March 2026 dismissal of a terrorism-financing-related complaint in Alabama.
Key Takeaways
- Changpeng “CZ” Zhao said U.S. exchange competitors opposed his pardon bid out of concern it could enable a Binance return to the U.S. market.
- Zhao said he is “pretty confident” there was pushback but acknowledged he has no “concrete evidence” of competitor lobbying.
- Binance left the U.S. market in November 2023 after a $4.3 billion settlement tied to BSA and IEEPA violations and failure to register as a money transmitting business.
- A federal court in Alabama granted a motion in March 2026 to dismiss a 2024 complaint alleging Binance, Binance.US, and Zhao facilitated transferring funds to terrorist groups.
CZ Says U.S. Rivals Fought His Pardon Over a Binance Comeback
Zhao framed his Trump pardon as a competitive flashpoint, arguing that U.S.-based exchange rivals had incentives to keep him unpardoned if it reduced the odds of Binance re-entering the U.S. market.
On the Crypto Banter podcast published to YouTube on Saturday, Zhao told host Ran Neuner, “You never know because we actually had very strong anti-lobbying from some of our perceived competitors in the US,” and added, “The other crypto exchanges in the US don't want me to get a pardon,” tying the alleged motive to fears a pardon could “pave the way for Binance to return to the US market.”
Zhao also undercut the claim’s evidentiary weight in the same discussion. “I'm pretty confident it happened to some extent. I don't have concrete evidence of any of it, but I'm pretty confident there was pushback,” he said. For traders, that matters because it keeps the competitor-lobbying angle in the sentiment bucket. It can move narratives around U.S. access, but it is not a verified catalyst on its own.
The U.S. Exit: $4.3B Settlement, BSA/IEEPA Violations, and the Compliance Backdrop
The tradable part of the story is the implied U.S. access pathway. Binance exited the U.S. market in November 2023 after a $4.3 billion settlement with the U.S. government over violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, plus failure to register as a money transmitting business.
That settlement framework is the hard constraint. Any headline that hints at a Binance U.S. return is really a headline about whether that constraint is loosening, or whether market participants are simply repricing the odds.
The compliance backdrop also explains why competitor incentives, if they exist, would be rational. U.S. market access is a liquidity and distribution prize, and the marginal impact of a major venue regaining access can show up in spreads, fee competition, and where flow concentrates.
Pardon and Timeline: Prison Term, Binance.US Restart, and Trump’s Public Comments
Zhao served a four-month prison sentence in 2024 for violating U.S. anti-money-laundering laws and completed the term in September 2024. Trump pardoned Zhao in October 2025, a little over a year later.
Binance.US resumed operations for eligible U.S. users in February 2025, months before the pardon. That sequencing matters because it suggests the U.S. operating narrative has multiple moving parts beyond Zhao’s personal legal status.
Trump’s public posture has been mixed. In a November 2025 60 Minutes interview, Trump said he had “no idea who he is” when asked about Zhao, while also saying he was told Zhao was a victim of a “witch hunt” by the administration of former President Joe Biden.
Signals Traders Should Track in the Binance-U.S. Narrative
The cleanest signal is paperwork, not podcast claims. Any new court filings or appeals activity tied to the March 2026 Alabama dismissal involving Binance, Binance.US, or Zhao could reintroduce litigation headline risk, even if the specific complaint was dismissed.
On the operating side, traders should separate “pardon optics” from “U.S. access reality.” Official statements or filings from Binance or Binance.US about U.S. market access plans post-pardon would carry more weight than generalized commentary.
Zhao naming specific competitors or producing documentation supporting the alleged “anti-lobbying” would also change how the market should price the claim. Absent that, it remains an assertion with acknowledged evidentiary gaps.
Finally, any additional U.S. regulatory or enforcement actions tied to the November 2023 settlement framework, including BSA, IEEPA, and money transmitter registration issues, would be the kind of hard constraint that can override narrative-driven positioning.
Why This Story Is More About Market Structure Than the Pardon Itself
I treat Zhao’s competitor-lobbying claim as a sentiment catalyst, not a fundamental shift, because he explicitly says he has no concrete evidence. The threshold that matters is whether anything emerges that changes the U.S. access constraint set by the November 2023 settlement.
The Alabama dismissal is the more concrete input because it modestly reduces one litigation overhang, even if it does not answer the bigger question of U.S. market re-entry. If U.S. access signals show up in filings and enforcement posture, the setup starts to look structural rather than narrative-driven, and that is when this story matters in practical terms.
