Trump Vietnam Deals Binance and Crypto Corruption Allegations

0:00

/1079.96

1×

Investigating Allegations of Corruption: Vietnam Trade Deals and Binance Influence Under Trump

Vietnam’s Trade Concessions Linked to U.S. Trade Policy

Vietnam has been accused of making strategic concessions to curry favor with the Trump administration during sensitive trade talks. Notably, three actions in 2024-2025 stand out as possible quid pro quo benefits:

• Purchasing American Aircraft: Vietnamese airlines moved forward on major orders of U.S.-made Boeing jets. Officials from both countries indicated that large plane purchases were seen as “crucial” for reducing Vietnam’s trade surplus with the U.S. and avoiding steep tariffs​ reuters.com. For example, budget carrier VietJet affirmed it would finally take delivery of Boeing 737 Max jets from a 200-aircraft order, after delays​ reuters.com. Such purchases directly address U.S. trade complaints and were encouraged by U.S. negotiators as a way to rebalance trade ​reuters.com.
• Opening the Market to Starlink: In a notable reversal, Vietnam approved Elon Musk’s Starlink satellite internet service to operate on a trial basis, despite strict foreign ownership limits in its telecom sector​ reuters.com. This approval came as an “olive branch” amid trade negotiations – an unprecedented concession allowing 100% foreign-owned satellite service under a special pilot program​ reuters.com. It coincided with Vietnam’s pledge to cut tariffs on U.S. goods (like LNG and cars) and other steps to appease U.S. trade demands​ aol.com. The timing suggests Vietnam hoped that pleasing a prominent U.S. businessman (Musk) and boosting U.S. exports would influence Washington’s stance on tariffs.
• Fast-Tracking a Trump Resort Project: Vietnam green-lit a $1.5 billion Trump-branded resort development near Hanoi, accelerating its approval and groundbreaking. The first phase – including multiple golf courses and hotels by the Trump Organization and a local partner – was announced in late 2024 and slated to break ground by May 2025​ reuters.com​reuters.com. Crucially, this groundbreaking was set “just weeks” after a looming April 2025 decision by the U.S. on “reciprocal tariffs” targeting countries (like Vietnam) with big trade imbalances​ reuters.com. In other words, as President Donald Trump weighed punitive tariffs on Vietnam, the Trump family business received an exceptionally swift go-ahead on its largest-ever Asian project. Vietnamese officials even hosted Trump Organization representatives, underscoring high-level support​ reuters.com.

Trade and Policy Context: All these moves coincided with active U.S.–Vietnam trade negotiations. President Trump had threatened a massive 46% tariff on Vietnam under a new “reciprocal trade” policy ​reuters.com​reuters.com. In response, Vietnam’s government scrambled to avert economic harm, agreeing to talks on a trade deal and implementing the above concessions. Indeed, hours after the U.S. paused the tariff plan, Vietnam announced it would begin formal trade agreement talks and facilitate more U.S. investment​ reuters.com​reuters.com. The contemporaneous timing strongly suggests these actions were intended to influence U.S. trade decisions in Vietnam’s favor. If President Trump’s trade decisions were swayed (even partially) by benefits to U.S. companies and to his own family business, it raises serious ethical issues. U.S. ethics laws (like the Emoluments Clause) bar a president from profiting off foreign governments, and any quid pro quo – e.g. easing tariffs in exchange for personal business gain – could constitute corruption. While Vietnam’s steps (buying planes, etc.) can be framed as normal diplomacy, the fast-tracking of a Trump resort during tariff talks is an extraordinary conflict of interest​ reuters.com​reuters.com. It blurs the line between U.S. trade policy and the president’s private interests.

Binance: U.S. Investigations, Penalties, and Legal Status

Background: Binance, the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, came under intense scrutiny by U.S. authorities prior to 2025. The Department of Justice (DOJ) and other regulators investigated Binance for years over money laundering, sanctions evasion, and unlicensed operations. This culminated in late 2023 with a landmark enforcement action: Binance and its founder Changpeng “CZ” Zhao both pleaded guilty to U.S. anti-money-laundering violations ​reuters.com. They admitted to willfully failing to implement an effective anti-money-laundering program, which allowed illicit transactions (by terrorists, child abusers, and sanctioned regimes) to flow through the platform ​afr.com.

Charges, Fines, and Sentencing: As part of a global settlement, Binance agreed to pay over $4.3 billion in penalties ​reuters.com – one of the largest corporate fines ever in a criminal case. CZ personally stepped down as CEO and also paid a hefty fine. In 2024, Zhao was sentenced in the U.S. and served a four-month prison term for the criminal violation of the Bank Secrecy Act​reuters.com. (He was taken into custody upon surrendering to U.S. authorities, reflecting the severity of the charge.) After his release, Zhao remained under supervised restrictions, and Binance installed new leadership. The company’s guilty plea and Zhao’s conviction marked a dramatic fall for the prominent crypto billionaire.

Compliance Agreement and Oversight: In addition to fines, Binance entered into a strict compliance agreement to avoid harsher penalties. The exchange agreed to offboard all U.S. customers from its global platform and to not re-enter the U.S. market without approval ​chaincatcher.com. It must also report all past suspicious transactions to U.S. authorities and submit to the oversight of independent monitors placed by the DOJ and Treasury Department​chaincatcher.com. Two monitors (one from DOJ, one from Treasury’s FinCEN) are embedded to supervise Binance’s operations for 3 to 5 years, ensuring it implements rigorous anti-money-laundering controls​ chaincatcher.com. This monitorship is essentially a probation period; any serious compliance lapse could trigger further prosecution.

Can Binance Operate in the U.S.? Currently, Binance’s main exchange (Binance.com) is not legally allowed to serve U.S. customers. Even before the plea, Binance had officially withdrawn from the U.S. (given it lacked proper licenses), instead nominally referring U.S. users to a separate entity Binance.US. Under the 2023 DOJ settlement, Binance explicitly committed to bar U.S. users on its global platform chaincatcher.com. Binance.US, a smaller affiliate, is technically legal but has faced its own regulatory troubles (including an SEC civil suit in 2023). In practice, Binance’s brand presence in the U.S. is now minimal – the company is focusing on overseas markets while it is under U.S. supervision. Only if U.S. authorities eventually clear Binance (for example, after the monitorship or via a future agreement) could the main exchange seek to re-enter the American market. As of early 2025, Binance operates under heavy watch and cannot freely do business in America. This constrained status underscores how punitive the U.S. actions were, and it sets the stage for why Binance might seek political favor to regain access.

Post-Election Lobbying: Binance and the Incoming Trump Administration

After the 2024 U.S. election, reports suggest Binance and its leadership moved swiftly to engage with Donald Trump’s incoming administration. Their goal: roll back some of the restrictions imposed by the prior regulators. Several notable interactions and developments occurred in late 2024 and early 2025:

• Abu Dhabi Crypto Conference (Dec 2024): In a highly publicized “Bitcoin MENA” conference in Abu Dhabi, members of the Trump family and Binance executives mingled, hinting at a new alliance. President-elect Trump’s son Eric Trump delivered a keynote address, promoting his family’s new crypto venture and the dawn of a “golden age of bitcoin” under his father​reuters.com​reuters.com. Also present was Binance’s founder CZ (Changpeng Zhao) – freshly out of prison – who hosted a private “whale” session for VIP attendees ​reuters.com. Behind closed doors, CZ was seen interacting with Eric Trump and Trump ally (and soon-to-be Middle East envoy) Steve Witkoff​chaincatcher.com. This conference effectively brought together the Trump camp and crypto power players. Eric Trump championed his father’s pro-crypto stance and hyped World Liberty Financial (WLF) – the Trump family’s new cryptocurrency platform – as a pillar of the incoming administration’s crypto-friendly agenda ​chaincatcher.com. Legal/Ethical note: These interactions raise questions because Trump was still President-elect at the time. Any understanding – even informal – between Binance and Trump associates about future policy could border on implicit quid pro quo lobbying (especially if tied to Binance’s legal relief).
• Trump Family’s “World Liberty” Crypto Venture: In September 2024, the Trumps helped launch World Liberty Financial, Inc., a crypto company aiming to issue a dollar-pegged stablecoin (tentatively called USD1) ​reuters.com​reuters.com. Donald Trump himself is listed as WLF’s “chief crypto advocate,” and his sons Don Jr., Eric, and even Barron are official ambassadors​reuters.com. Notably, company filings show Trump was allocated 22.5 billion WLF tokens and a large share of revenues reuters.com – giving the family a huge financial stake. At the Abu Dhabi conference, Eric actively promoted WLF to investors, and special VIP sessions were offered to big-ticket buyers of the Trump-linked token​ reuters.com​reuters.com. Binance’s interest: For Binance, this presented a business opportunity. According to insider reports, Binance entered talks with WLF about potential partnerships, such as listing WLF’s prospective stablecoin on Binance’s exchange ​reuters.com. Binance’s massive user base could make Trump’s coin viable, and in return the Trump administration could view Binance more favorably. Discussions reportedly occurred on how Binance might support WLF’s rollout and how the new administration might ease Binance’s legal burdens​ chaincatcher.com​chaincatcher.com. This interweaving of public policy and private business is unusual: a sitting president’s family venture seeking deals with a company that is simultaneously under federal monitors. It presents a clear conflict of interest – any policy decisions Trump makes on crypto will affect a company (Binance) that is directly doing business with his family.
• Meetings with U.S. Officials and Policy Requests: In early 2025, Binance executives met with U.S. Treasury Department officials in Washington as part of a broader lobbying effort ​reuters.com. Binance’s new CEO Richard Teng and Chief Legal Officer Eleanor Hughes attended a meeting in March 2025 where they asked regulators to relax Binance’s oversight​reuters.com. Specifically, they requested removal of the independent compliance monitor or at least a reduction in the monitorship’s scope and duration ​reuters.com. This is a bold ask – essentially Binance sought to end the “probation” early. In the same meeting, Binance raised the prospect of listing World Liberty’s stablecoin (USD1) once launched reuters.com. These talks demonstrate a direct attempt to leverage the new administration’s more lenient philosophy. A Treasury official later characterized the meeting as one of many with crypto industry players, but it underscored Binance’s eagerness to negotiate away its punishments​ chaincatcher.com. That Binance felt emboldened to ask for the monitor’s removal “last month” (i.e. shortly after Trump took office) indicates they believed they had an opening with the new leadership ​reuters.com. It is unusual for an entity under active DOJ/Treasury monitorship to lobby for its termination so soon – raising questions of political interference if such relief were granted.
• Pardon Advocacy for CZ: Perhaps the most striking allegation is that Changpeng Zhao sought a presidential pardon for his conviction. The Wall Street Journal reported that Zhao had been “pushing for a pardon” from President Trump, hoping to erase his felony guilty plea ​reuters.com. A pardon would not only clear Zhao’s name but also remove barriers for him to travel and conduct business in the U.S. again. Internal discussions at Binance were reportedly optimistic that Trump might grant this clemency​ reuters.com. In fact, Zhao himself hinted on social media that “no criminal would mind receiving a pardon”​ chaincatcher.com. It’s unclear if any explicit quid pro quo was offered, but the context is suspicious: Trump’s team was in business talks with Binance while Binance’s founder sought relief only Trump could grant. Any direct deal – a pardon in exchange for financial or political support – would be blatant corruption (selling presidential favors). As of April 2025, no pardon for Zhao has been announced, but the mere pursuit of it reflects the blurred lines between Trump’s official powers and his family’s private interests.
• Optimism of Policy Change: Within Binance and the crypto industry, there was a palpable “optimism… about looser regulation under Trump”​reuters.com. Trump had openly courted crypto donors during his campaign and billed himself as the “crypto president” who would make America “the crypto capital of the planet” ​reuters.com. This rhetoric, combined with Trump’s personal stake in WLF, signaled a stark reversal from the previous administration’s approach. The Wall Street Journal and Reuters reported that Binance executives were confident the new administration would accommodate their requests for lighter oversight ​reuters.com​reuters.com. Binance’s public statements started reflecting this hope – a spokesperson applauded the “incredible momentum” of the U.S. crypto movement under new leadership and said Binance was “eager to support any government” looking to balance innovation and regulation ​chaincatcher.com. In other words, Binance expected friendlier treatment and was positioning itself as a cooperative partner to Trump’s team. This climate of expectation is important context for assessing the integrity of ensuing decisions. If regulatory and enforcement actions were indeed softened to favor a politically-connected company, it would erode the rule of law and suggest improper influence.

Regulatory Rollbacks, Pardons, and Ethical Implications

Once in office in 2025, President Trump took actions that aligned with the crypto industry’s interests – and, by extension, Binance’s and his own family’s interests – raising further red flags about conflicts of interest and corruption:

• Presidential Pardons of Crypto Offenders: In March 2025, Trump issued presidential pardons to several individuals convicted of cryptocurrency-related crimes. Most notably, he pardoned all three co-founders of the crypto exchange BitMEX – Arthur Hayes, Benjamin Delo, and Samuel Reed – along with a related executive and the exchange entity itself​reuters.com. These individuals had pleaded guilty in 2022 to violating U.S. anti-money-laundering laws (essentially the same offense as Binance’s) by failing to implement KYC/AML programs ​reuters.com. The pardons shocked many, as they nullified the punishments of high-profile financial criminals. They also came at a time when the crypto industry was optimistic that Trump would loosen regulations, reinforcing the perception that crypto insiders were being rewarded​ reuters.com. While a president has broad pardon powers, using them on multiple crypto felons who were prosecuted just a year or two prior is extremely unusual. It suggests a politicization of clemency – potentially payback to an industry that supported Trump. (Trump did receive significant donations from crypto figures during his campaign reuters.com.) Legally, the pardons are valid; ethically, they have been criticized as undermining accountability and encouraging the view that influential offenders can escape consequences.
• DOJ Crypto Enforcement Team Shutdown: The Trump Justice Department abruptly disbanded its National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team (NCET) in April 2025 ​reuters.com​reuters.com. This unit had been formed in 2022 to crack down on crypto fraud and illicit finance, and it played a key role in cases like the Binance investigation​ reuters.com. Trump’s Deputy Attorney General issued a memo accusing the prior administration of “regulation by prosecution” in crypto, and directed prosecutors to narrow the focus only to clear crimes (like using crypto for terrorism or drug trafficking) ​reuters.com​reuters.com. All ongoing cases not aligned with that focus were ordered closed​ reuters.com. This represents a major policy reversal – effectively halting the aggressive pursuit of crypto companies for regulatory non-compliance. The legal implication is that some investigations into industry wrongdoing might be dropped entirely. Indeed, the memo cited one of Trump’s executive orders about allowing access to blockchain networks “without persecution” ​reuters.com, making it explicit that enforcement should be more lenient. Ethical implications: The shutdown happened as Trump and his family stood to gain financially from the crypto sector’s success​reuters.com. Reuters noted the “personal stake” the Trump family had in crypto, with an estimated 75% cut of revenue from WLF token sales (potentially $400 million to the Trumps) ​reuters.com. This conflict of interest raises concern that official policy was tailored to benefit the President’s own investments. Dissolving the crypto enforcement team could be seen as protecting allies and the Trump family’s venture from future legal scrutiny. It undermines the appearance of impartial justice.
• SEC Pullback from Crypto Cases: The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) also shifted its stance under the new regime. The SEC’s dedicated crypto enforcement unit reportedly “refocused” and even halted some high-profile cases in early 2025 ​reuters.com. Notably, the SEC suspended its fraud lawsuit against Justin Sun, the Chinese crypto mogul behind Tron – who, as mentioned, had become the largest outside investor in Trump’s WLF project with a $30–75 million buy-in​banking.senate.gov. Sun had been charged in 2023 with fraud and market manipulation, but shortly after Trump’s election and Sun’s massive investment in the Trump venture, the SEC quietly agreed to stay the case while both sides discuss a resolution ​gizmodo.com​banking.senate.gov. A judge approved this pause in late February 2025. Lawmakers like Sen. Elizabeth Warren have decried this sequence, calling it an “abrupt” and concerning reversal that suggests preferential treatment for a Trump-linked figure​banking.senate.gov​banking.senate.gov. In a public letter, Sen. Warren and Rep. Maxine Waters pointed out the obvious conflict: Trump’s family stands to profit from WLF, and one of WLF’s biggest backers (Sun) saw his legal peril diminish soon after boosting Trump’s coffers ​banking.senate.gov​banking.senate.gov. If the SEC dropped or weakened a case because the defendant effectively paid the president (via an investment), that is textbook corruption. Even the appearance of such a deal is damaging. It sends a message that justice is not blind if one has the means to enrich those in power. The SEC denies any improper influence, but the timing in this and other cases (reportedly the SEC also eased off actions against certain exchanges and individuals aligned with the new crypto-friendly climate ​reuters.com) casts a shadow over the integrity of financial regulation under Trump.

Broader Ethical and Legal Implications: The above developments illustrate a pattern where public policy potentially became intertwined with President Trump’s personal and political interests:

• In Vietnam, a foreign government’s favorable treatment of Trump’s business occurred alongside U.S. policy concessions – raising the specter of emoluments violations or bribery if any direct linkage is proven ​reuters.com​reuters.com.
• In the Binance and crypto arena, Trump’s dual role as regulator and beneficiary created unprecedented conflicts. The Trump family’s active crypto venture meant that decisions on enforcement, prosecutions, and pardons could directly enrich the President. This blurring of public duty and private gain is widely seen as unethical. Senators have called it “an unprecedented conflict of interest” that could undermine fair oversight of the industry​banking.senate.gov.
• The legal framework does allow a president to change policy direction (e.g. disbanding a DOJ unit or setting enforcement priorities) and to issue pardons. However, doing so in a manner that consistently favors one’s benefactors edges into abuse of power. U.S. anti-corruption laws (like bribery statutes) could conceivably come into play if there were explicit agreements – for instance, exchanging a pardon or favorable regulation for investments into Trump businesses. While no such secret deal is confirmed, the accumulation of circumstantial evidence (large sums flowing to the Trumps, followed by favorable acts) has prompted investigations and calls for transparency​banking.senate.gov​banking.senate.gov.
• At minimum, these actions erode trust in government. Career officials and the public have noted that enforcement was not applied equally; allies of the administration or those who paid up (literally buying Trump tokens) appeared to get breaks that others did not. This selective leniency poses a rule-of-law problem. It also has practical implications: by loosening restraints on entities like Binance and pardoning past violators, the administration may encourage riskier behavior in the crypto market, potentially exposing investors and the financial system to future harm.

In summary, the Vietnam trade perks and the Binance/crypto dealings under Trump’s watch each carry the scent of potential corruption. Vietnam’s purchases and approvals lined up too neatly with Trump’s trade decisions to be coincidence, and they directly benefited a President’s company while he held the power to return the favor on tariffs reuters.com​reuters.com. In the Binance case, a confluence of pardons, policy U-turns, and private deal-making benefited both Trump’s family and certain crypto figures​ reuters.com​banking.senate.gov. These facts, many of them verified by reliable sources, spotlight legal and ethical concerns that continue to be scrutinized. The situation underscores why strong conflict-of-interest safeguards are crucial – and how the lack of them can lead to governance that appears to serve the interests of a few rather than the public at large.

Sources: All claims are supported by contemporary reports and official documents. Key references include Reuters investigations ​reuters.com​reuters.com, U.S. Justice Department filings ​reuters.com, and congressional oversight letters​banking.senate.gov, among others, as cited throughout this report.