Justice Department Announces Stunning Change on Crypto Investigations

Trump’s Justice Department  is going to pull back on prosecuting cryptocurrency fraud, according to a memo from Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche.

The memo, sent to the Justice Department Monday, states that the DOJ won’t be pursuing cases that Blanche said are better suited for financial regulators, instead focusing on crimes committed with cryptocurrency, such as selling illegal drugs, The Washington Post reports.  

Blanche also plans to dismantle the National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team, which was set up in 2022 to “address the challenge posed by the criminal misuse of cryptocurrencies and digital assets.” The move throttles an enforcement team that has successfully prosecuted market manipulation schemes and attempts to hide the owners of crypto assets. The unit was already hampered by the fact that in the Trump administration’s first days, its leader was transferred to a new sanctuary cities division in the DOJ. 

Now other attorneys previously focused on cryptocurrency will instead focus on immigration crimes and procurement fraud, the memo states, although federal prosecutors will still be directed to bring cases against people who defraud investors.

The shift away from prosecuting crypto crimes is not surprising for the Trump administration. The president has long cozied up to cryptocurrency investors, and even engaged in some shady crypto transactions of his own, such as his deal with Justin Sun, a Chinese national accused of fraud. Trump and his wife, Melania, have also released their own memecoins.

The president’s announcement last month of a new national “crypto strategic reserve” smacks of a blatant ploy to make some of his cronies richer, and the Trump family has reportedly held talks about taking a financial stake into Binance, a cryptocurrency firm that pleaded guilty in 2023 to money laundering. It seems that Trump and his cronies are looking to profit from cryptocurrency and want pesky regulations and law enforcement out of the way.

Elon Musk called Donald Trump’s top trade adviser Peter Navarro “dumber than a sack of bricks” Tuesday, once again betraying the administration’s deep rift over the president’s disastrous tariffs. 

Navarro found himself in hot water with Musk after he called the billionaire bureaucrat a “car assembler” during an appearance on CNBC Monday.  

“When it comes to tariffs and trade, we all understand in the White House—and the American people understand—that Elon’s a car manufacturer. But he’s not a car manufacturer. He’s a car assembler, in many cases,” Navarro said. 

“If you go to his Texas plant, a good part of the engines that he gets, which in the EV case is the batteries, come from Japan and come from China, the electronics come from Taiwan,” Navarro said.

Navarro explained that Musk’s view on tariffs differed from the White House’s because he wanted to continue to use “cheap foreign parts.”

Musk was furious. “Navarro is truly a moron. What he says here is demonstrably false,” he wrote in a post on X Tuesday. 

In a separate post, Musk claimed that “Tesla has the most American-made cars.”

“Navarro is dumber than a sack of bricks,” he added. 

Musk included a link to an article from 2023 citing a Cars.com study that found Tesla produced the “most American” cars. One extremely important caveat: The study included Canada as part of the U.S., which is, of course, subject to Trump’s “permanent” 25 percent tariffs on all imported vehicles and auto parts.

The more recent version of that same study, from 2024, found that the Tesla Model Y still topped the list, though it noted that the company no longer held “a vice grip at the top of the order thanks in part to changes in this year’s workforce calculations.” Still, the study included Canadian parts content as U.S. parts. 

And crucially, Navarro’s not wrong that Musk’s electric vehicle company relies on foreign parts. Tesla’s batteries are manufactured at its Giga Shanghai factory in China in collaboration with Chinese battery manufacturer Contemporary Amperex Technology Co. Even if Tesla wanted to produce its batteries domestically, it would need to source materials such as nickel and lithium from other countries.

Over the weekend, the billionaire attacked Navarro’s defense of Trump’s tariffs on X, and posted a video of economist Milton Friedman that explains the global nature of supply chains, which was interpreted as a criticism of Trump’s sweeping “reciprocal tariffs” on nearly every country. 

Navarro replied by saying Musk “doesn’t understand” trade.

“The thing that’s, I think, important about Elon to understand, he sells cars. That’s what he does,” he said during an interview on Fox Business Monday. “He’s simply protecting his own interests, as any businessperson would do.”

“He’s got X, he’s got a big microphone; we don’t mind him saying whatever he wants,” Navarro added—though he may come to regret that sentiment.

Senator Mark Warner became exasperated Tuesday with Trump Trade Representative Jamieson Greer as he was unable to give a real answer as to why the president hit Australia—a key ally, with whom the U.S. has a trade surplus—with 10 percent tariffs on all imports.

“Australia is one of our strongest allies.… We have a free trade agreement with Australia. We don’t have tariffs,” Warner said. “We have a trade surplus with Australia.… With a trade surplus, with this strong relationship, Australia got hit with a 10 percent tariff as well?”

“Senator, Australia has the lowest rate available under the new program; they banned—”

“Ambassador, excuse me,” Warner interrupted. “There is a trade surplus. We already have a free trade agreement … so getting the least bad—why did they get whacked in the first place?”

“We’re addressing the $1.2 trillion deficit, the largest in human history, that President Biden left us with. We should be running up the score on Australia; they ban our beef, and they ban our pork—”

“Ambassador Greer, answer the question on Australia. We have a trade surplus with Australia; we have a free trade agreement. They’re an incredibly important national security partner. Why were they whacked with a tariff?”

“Senator, despite the agreement, they ban our beef, they ban our pork, they’re getting ready to impost measure—”

“But with your Greek letter formula, the fact that we have a trade surplus—”

“We have a global tariff on everyone,” Greer replied, continuing to evade the question. “We’re trying to address the $1.2 trillion deficit that Biden left us with, sir.”

“I think that answer.… Sir, you’re a much smarter person than that answer. The idea that we are gonna whack friend and foe alike, in particular friends … is both, I think, insulting to the Australians and it undermines our national security, and frankly makes us not a good partner going forward. The lack of trust from friends and allies based upon this ridiculous policy that goes into full effect at midnight tonight is extraordinary.

“A good day in hospice,” Warner continued. “I’m afraid if we keep these tariffs in effect, we’re looking like an economy that will be in hospice.”

The Supreme Court blocked an order Tuesday requiring the government to reinstate roughly 16,000 probationary federal employees ousted as part of the Department of Government Efficiency’s massive government layoffs across six different agencies.

In a brief two-page order, the court found that the nine nonprofit organizations that had brought the case lacked standing to do so. The ruling is a temporary win for the Trump administration’s efforts to gut the federal workforce, and for DOGE, which recommended the sweeping layoffs.

Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson would have denied the application, according to the order.

Last month, U.S. District Judge William Alsup in California ordered officials at the Departments of Veterans Affairs, Defense, Energy, Interior, Agriculture, and Treasury to “immediately” reinstate all fired probationary employees.

Alsup stated that the mid-February mass terminations were the result of an “unlawful” directive from the Office of Personnel Management, and torched the White House’s effort to claim that the decisions were based on supposed performance failures as “a gimmick.”

“It is sad, a sad day, when our government would fire some good employee and say it was based on performance when they know good and well that’s a lie,” Alsup said in a hearing ahead of his ruling.

Despite the high court’s ruling, the fight to reinstate the workers isn’t over yet.

Another judge, U.S. District Judge James Bredar in Maryland, issued a similar order to Alsup’s applying to workers fired from 12 departments: Agriculture, Commerce, Education, Energy, Health and Human Services, Homeland Security, Housing and Urban Development, Interior, Labor, Transportation, Treasury, and Veterans Affairs.

Bredar’s ruling was on a case brought by a group of states with Democratic attorneys general, and wouldn’t be subject to the same standing issue as the case decided Tuesday.

This is the third time in two days that the Supreme Court has ruled in favor of the Trump administration’s agenda. The court temporarily blocked an order Monday night requiring the government to return a man wrongly deported to El Salvador to the U.S. by midnight. In a controversial decision, the court also blocked an injunction stopping Trump’s deportations under the Alien Enemies Act.

This story has been updated.

The Trump administration’s calculations justifying the most consequential tariff scheme of the last century are all wrong.

In an op-ed for The New York Times published Monday, economist Brent Neiman, whose research was used to justify the White House’s implementation of reciprocal tariffs, wrote that the White House fundamentally misunderstood his work.

“My first question, when the White House unveiled its tariff regime, was: How on earth did it calculate such huge rates?” Neiman wrote in the op-ed. “The next day it got personal.”

Shortly after the Trump administration announced its plan to implement tariffs of 10 percent or more on 90 countries—which it claims will eliminate the trade deficit but has only spurred global economic chaos—the Office of the United States Trade Representative published its methodology for the tariff calculations, citing a paper by Neiman and four other economists.

“But it got it wrong. Very wrong. I disagree fundamentally with the government’s trade policy and approach,” Neiman wrote. “But even taking it at face value, our findings suggest the calculated tariffs should be dramatically smaller—perhaps one-fourth as large.”

So if the White House had done the math right, and wanted its absurd trade plan to actually work, 20 percent tariffs should have been … 5 percent.

That wasn’t the only mistake, Neiman pointed out. The Trade Office claimed its reciprocal tariff calculations would eliminate trade deficits with each American trading partner. Neiman concluded that is not a “reasonable goal.”

“Trade imbalances between two countries can emerge for many reasons that have nothing to do with protectionism.… There are some reasonable arguments in favor of reducing the overall trade deficit, such as to reduce risks from our debt. But these arguments don’t apply country by country,” Neiman wrote, further exposing the White House’s lack of reasoning.

Even if all trade deficits are eliminated (which Neiman points out is basically impossible), reciprocal tariffs still won’t work.

“The administration’s tariff formula assumes that a tariff placed on one country won’t affect imports from any others and ignores any implications for exports,” Neiman said. “These assumptions may work for an action against one small trade partner, but not for the broad salvo announced last week.”

Neiman went on to decimate pretty much every justification the Trump administration has provided for tariff implementation, including its selective picking and choosing of his research results to support its claims.

“As a result of these and other methodological choices, Wednesday’s reciprocal tariffs will bring average tariff rates to their highest level in over 100 years. I would strongly prefer that the policy and methodology be scrapped entirely. But barring that, the administration should divide its results by four.” Neiman concluded, a grim reminder of the economic chaos yet to come.