Ripple CEO Slams NYT Over ‘Crypto Hit Piece’ on SEC Enforcement

Brad Garlinghouse’s central accusation is that The New York Times report advanced a ‘false and failed narrative’ by ignoring a series of federal court rulings that rebuked the SEC’s enforcement strategy during the Biden administration. He specifically cited U.S. Magistrate Judge Sarah Netburn, who stated the agency’s leadership failed to show ‘faithful allegiance to the law.’ Garlinghouse also referenced another judge who ruled the SEC’s actions were ‘arbitrary and capricious,’ and a third who fined the regulator for making false statements to the court.

Garlinghouse argued that by omitting these significant legal setbacks, the NYT coverage falsely frames the Biden-era SEC’s aggressive posture—which included high-profile cases against firms like Ripple—as standard regulatory practice. ‘This is not journalism,’ Garlinghouse wrote on X, asserting the report relied on ‘half-truths and outright omissions’ to justify what he termed an ‘illegal War on Crypto’ waged under the previous administration. He questioned why similar headlines did not appear during the Biden years when the SEC was actively pursuing crypto firms through what the industry widely criticized as ‘regulation by enforcement.’

The New York Times investigation at the heart of the dispute claimed the SEC has pulled back from more than 60% of its ongoing crypto enforcement cases since Donald Trump returned to the White House. According to the report, this retreat has manifested through paused litigation, reduced penalties, or outright case dismissals. The report noted that several benefiting firms, including Ripple, had financial or political ties to Trump, but explicitly stated it found no evidence of ‘direct pressure from the president or of improper influence by the companies.’

In Ripple’s specific case, the report highlighted that the SEC had attempted to reduce a previously court-ordered $125 million penalty against the company to $50 million—a move that was ultimately rejected by a judge. This detail underscores the ongoing legal complexity surrounding XRP and SEC enforcement. The report’s framing prompted immediate backlash from beyond Garlinghouse. Alex Thorn, head of firmwide research at Galaxy Digital, criticized the NYT for relying on a ‘false premise,’ arguing it treated the Biden administration’s crackdown as normal when it was ‘anything but.’

Thorn further asserted it was dishonest to suggest the regulatory shift was driven by Trump’s personal crypto interests. In a post on X, he accused the ‘paper of record’ of promoting ‘crypto dementia’ and relying on the ‘Gell-Mann Amnesia’ effect, where readers accept questionable reporting in fields they know little about. ‘This type of reporting relies on the readership being uninformed, which, unfortunately, too many are,’ Thorn wrote, amplifying the sentiment that the coverage lacked critical context.

The public clash between a high-profile crypto CEO and a major media institution highlights the deeply polarized narrative surrounding digital asset regulation in the United States. The dispute centers on whether media coverage accurately reflects the legal realities shaping SEC policy. Garlinghouse and Thorn’s criticisms suggest a belief that influential outlets are perpetuating a narrative that overlooks judicial checks on regulatory overreach, thereby shaping public and political perception unfairly.

This incident also underscores the ongoing tension between the crypto industry and regulators, with court rulings becoming pivotal battlegrounds. The referenced judges’ rebukes of the SEC indicate significant legal challenges to the agency’s ‘regulation by enforcement’ strategy, a context Garlinghouse insists is essential for balanced reporting. As the regulatory landscape for cryptocurrencies like XRP remains in flux, the accuracy and completeness of financial journalism will continue to be scrutinized by industry leaders who feel their sector is misrepresented in mainstream discourse.