On October 29, 2025, Binance.US added support for the USD1 stablecoin, issued by World Liberty Financial (WLFI) — a platform reportedly tied to former U.S. President Donald Trump.

The move immediately drew political fire. Senator Chris Murphy accused the White House of corruption, saying the listing appeared connected to Trump’s decision to pardon former Binance CEO Changpeng Zhao (CZ) just days earlier.

The global exchange Binance had already listed USD1 months earlier, in May 2025. According to The Wall Street Journal, the company was then in talks to list the stablecoin while also seeking to ease regulatory oversight from U.S. authorities.

At the time, however, USD1 wasn’t available to Binance.US users, as the American arm operates independently. That changed in late October, shortly after Trump’s controversial pardon of CZ.

Media reports claim that lobbying efforts behind Zhao’s pardon cost Binance roughly $860,000, fueling accusations of quid pro quo politics.

Democrats condemned the decision, with senators urging the Department of Justice to investigate possible conflicts of interest between the White House, WLFI, and Binance. Lawmakers pointed to WLFI’s alleged links with Binance, its blockchain, and its financial support for MGX’s investment in the exchange.

Senator Murphy’s Accusations and Binance’s Response

Senator Murphy was direct in his criticism, posting:

Binance.US rejected the accusations, emphasizing that its listing process follows strict compliance standards:

USD1 and WLFI are already listed on over 20 major exchanges, including Coinbase, Robinhood, and Kraken. Both assets were long ago approved by our listing committee in the normal course of business. This was a business decision, nothing more.”

As of publication, Senator Murphy has not responded to Binance.US’s statement.

The USD1 controversy underscores how the lines between cryptocurrency, regulation, and politics continue to blur. Stablecoins have become central to digital payments — and now, apparently, to political debate.

If the allegations prove true, this could mark one of the most politically charged moments in the history of crypto regulation — a case where financial innovation collides head-on with presidential power.