Is Trump's crypto policy opening doors for terror financing in Pakistan?
Currency that can go rogue
Synopsis Pakistan is leveraging cryptocurrency to strengthen ties with the Trump administration, amidst concerns over lax anti-money laundering enforcement and potential terror financing risks. Trump's crypto-friendly policies are opening doors for previously scrutinized figures, while Pakistan aims to align with US crypto regulations, potentially circumventing FATF and IMF scrutiny. By now, it's clear that Pakistan warmed itself with the Trump administration through the cryptocurrency route, a business into which the US president's family is both deeply involved in and invested. But it's the emerging network and cast that's beginning to uncover a tale of how Trump's move to regularise crypto is opening the door of political legitimacy to those who, until now, have been under scrutiny.
ADVERTISEMENT Changpeng Zhao, Chinese-born Canadian ex-CEO-founder of Binance, pleaded guilty two years ago for not implementing proper anti-money laundering standards. He spent time in a US prison, coughed up $4.3 bn in settlement, and was charged with allowing sanctioned entities like Hamas to raise money through his exchange. He's now appointed strategic adviser to Pakistan's crypto council.
Crypto billionaire Chinese-born St Kitts national Justin Sun - who's invested $30 mn into the Trump-linked World Liberty Financial (WLF), which has tied up business with Pakistan - also has been under investigation by the US Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). But SEC just dropped its probe against Zhao, and may just do the same with Sun, who was charged with 'civil fraud' in 2023. He was in the headlines for attending a special dinner with Trump earlier this month.
Trump has not just reversed Biden's policy approach to cryptocurrencies, but has dismantled the enforcement framework as well, providing a new window of opportunity to those earlier sanctioned and probed. His administration has shut down US Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) that was set up after the 2008 financial crisis to protect consumers against frauds and risks. White House's new AI and crypto czar David Sacks described CFPB at the just concluded Bitcoin 2025 in Las Vegas as a 'goon squad' that 'terrorised crypto companies' over the past few years.The bigger worry is terror financing. US Treasury's 2024 National Terrorist Financing Risk Assessment (NTFRA) report had cautioned, 'Since the 2022 NTFRA, certain terrorist groups, such as ISIS-K and Hamas, have increased their understanding of and are experimenting with different types of virtual assets.'But Trump 2.0 has its own roadmap. After two White House executive orders, focus is on the GENIUS (Guiding and Establishing National Innovation for US Stablecoins) Bill. It has made it past the Senate Banking Committee, following which a market regulatory structure bill is set to be moved.
ADVERTISEMENT What Pakistan has tried to do is mirror similar structures to facilitate transactions. Because the GENIUS Bill conditions that it will trade stablecoins with countries that have similar legislations and structures.The US legislation builds on the idea of having a stablecoin pegged on the dollar, and issued on a 1:1 model. For one coin issued, there should be $1 in reserve. While proposing to treat these companies at par with financial services under US Bank Service Company Act, the legislation prohibits them from other services like lending, borrowing and earning by charging interests.
ADVERTISEMENT But the US treasury department had also raised the terror red flag on stablecoins in its 2024 NTFRA report: 'Stablecoins purport to be less volatile than other virtual assets and may enable terrorist groups to utilise virtual assets while mitigating the financial risks associated with price fluctuations.'
India's concerns with crypto stem from this - precisely when Pakistan as a terror sponsor state is seeking to align itself with the US. The main concern for Pakistan and its own crypto czar Bilal Bin Saqib, who was instrumental in roping in Zhao, is to make its legal frame FATF-compliant. Pakistan is hoping to piggyback on the GENIUS Bill, which the US will look to use its clout with FATF to make it the new acceptable standard on managing cryptos.
ADVERTISEMENT FATF, however, needs to be assured that the new frame complies with its 'travel rule'. This means any company must be able to provide data for the entire chain - origin to beneficiary - of a transaction. And that, too, up to a period of five years, necessitating a major proliferation in data centres that will require uninterrupted electricity. Then, there's IMF's role.What's common between Pakistan, El Salvador and Ethiopia? All three are stressed economies dependent on IMF bailout packages, but are going big on crypto. Do IMF's lending conditions permit such exposures with links to terror financing and money laundering? Pakistan may have to answer some tough questions to IMF on its decision to allocate 2,000 MW electricity for crypto mining without consultations. Or, for that matter, the unilateral announcement to set up strategic bitcoin reserve without prior intimation.
ADVERTISEMENT But Pakistan will hope for Trump to prevail on IMF. Just like he did with El Salvador. Its charismatic leader Nayib Bukele has invested 15% of the country's GDP in bitcoins. IMF had made it a condition for El Salvador's government to gradually move out from such investment. Bukele defied such a condition. And now with Trump's support, he has just secured an IMF approval for $1.4 bn additional funding.Pakistan obtained a similar approval on May 9, while Op Sindoor was on. It's now counting on Trump to overcome fresh roadblocks arising from its crypto announcements and not just gain legitimacy, but also reduce dependence on IMF by investing in bitcoin assets.
So, a new political capital in the form of 'cryptoplacy' is at play. India will have to rework its playbook accordingly. Not necessarily to embrace the idea, but certainly to deal with a clear, present and evolving security question. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of www.economictimes.com.)
(Catch all the Business News, Breaking News, Budget 2024 Events and Latest News Updates on The Economic Times.)
Subscribe to The Economic Times Prime and read the ET ePaper online.
NEXT STORY
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
Lululemon's new maxi dress goes viral — Why TikTok can't stop talking about its design and price
A recently launched multi-functional dress by Canadian athleisure brand Lululemon has sparked widespread online discourse, earning both praise and skepticism for its design, cost, and viral appeal. The Lululemon dress in question — a two-in-one maxi that functions as both a strapless dress and ankle-length skirt — has already sold out in nearly all sizes and colours, save for one extra-large option in Light Ivory. Social media platforms, especially TikTok, have been abuzz with reactions, polarising netizens between those hailing the dress as a wardrobe essential and others questioning the hype over what they see as a basic garment, as mentioned in a report by USA Today. A Dress That Doubles as a Skirt The Lululemon 2-in-1 Maxi Dress, priced at $148 (approximately ₹12,300), is marketed as a versatile wardrobe item that adapts between a maxi skirt and a strapless dress. This minimalistic piece is offered in solid hues and made from the company's signature athletic fabric. Available online through Lululemon's official website, the garment has already experienced a surge in demand, leading to near-total unavailability across sizes and shades. Despite its simple silhouette, the garment's dual function has drawn significant attention, becoming the latest fashion item to gain traction through influencer-led promotion, as per a report by USA Today. Live Events TikTok Weighs In: From Obsession to Opposition Content creator Chantalissa, whose video reviewing the dress garnered over 83,000 views as of June 3, praised the product for its elegance and wearability. 'I actually feel like a princess in it. It's so beautiful, so flowy. I'm obsessed,' she shared, highlighting how the piece quickly made it from viral feed to wardrobe must-have. However, not all users shared the same enthusiasm. Dasie, another popular TikTok user, expressed confusion over the frenzy. 'Is this just for the label?' she asked. 'You could walk into Walmart and get a cuter dress than that.' Her comment, though couched with disclaimers of 'no hate,' reflects the growing tension between brand loyalty and affordability. Is It a 'Thneed'? Internet Debates Versatility The dress has also found itself entangled in a pop culture debate. Online users began labelling it a "thneed" — a term coined from Dr. Seuss' The Lorax to describe a versatile, multifunctional item deemed essential. While the Lululemon dress is being lauded by some for its adaptability, critics argue it lacks the true transformative essence of a thneed. TikTok user Rachael, popularly known as "The Thneed Girl," refuted the categorization. 'It's just going from being worn down at the hip to up at the chest. It's not transforming like a thneed really needs to do,' she said, offering a tongue-in-cheek literary critique. A Viral Trend or Another Branded Obsession? As fashion discourse continues to unfold on digital platforms, the Lululemon dress has become emblematic of wider debates: consumerism, brand-driven hype, and evolving definitions of value in modern wardrobes. While the company has yet to comment on restocking details, shoppers can sign up on the official website for alerts regarding new inventory. Whether this Lululemon dress remains a fleeting trend or earns its place as a staple in closets remains to be seen. For now, it is clear that the brand has successfully captured the internet's attention again. FAQs What is the Lululemon dress that's gone viral? It's a multi-functional, two-in-one maxi dress that can be worn as both a strapless dress and an ankle-length skirt. Made from athletic fabric, it's priced at $148 (approx. ₹12,300). Why is the Lululemon dress trending on TikTok? TikTok influencers, like Chantalissa, praised the dress's elegance and versatility. Her video received over 83,000 views, fueling the dress's popularity and prompting a surge in online demand.
Time of India
24 minutes ago
- Time of India
India weighs legal uncertainties around Trump tariffs as trade pact talks start this week
India is weighing legal uncertainties surrounding Trump tariffs as it prepares for the next round of trade talks this week, an official said. The official said these developments could influence India's approach to the proposed bilateral trade pact with the US. A team of US officials is visiting here from June 5 to hold talks with their Indian counterparts on the proposed pact. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like O novo dispositivo que os idosos usam para ajudar na neuropatia (dor nos nervos) A arte do herbalismo Undo Though India is looking for a balanced and a mutually beneficial trade agreement with the US, "what we get as compared to other countries, will determine what we ultimately finalise in the deal", the official said. The US is negotiating trade pacts with over 75 countries, including China. It has already finalised a pact with the UK. Live Events Asked if some kind of interim trade deal can be agreed upon before July 9, the official said a lot of uncertainties are there at present because of developments like the Trump administration's plan to further increase tariffs on steel and a stay on a court order against the US authorities' decisions on tariffs. But within the constraints of uncertainties, India has to find pathways which are good for the country, the official added. A US court of international trade on May 28 had ruled that present Trump tariffs were illegal under the international emergency economic powers act. The administration later filed an appeal and got a stay on this order. On April 2, US President Donald Trump announced reciprocal tariffs against several countries, including India. It imposed an additional duty of 26 per cent on India, but later suspended it till July 9. However, the 10 per cent baseline duty on all the countries remains. India has already reserved its right to impose retaliatory tariffs against US duties on steel and aluminium. It has also sought consultations under the WTO norms on US tariffs on auto components. If India is considering taking similar measures in more products, the official said India will protect its interests. "We will see what is good for India... accordingly we will take decisions," the official said, adding, "Today a lot of uncertainties are there... because of that court order... we will discuss how to address these issues... lot of uncertainties are there".
Time of India
25 minutes ago
- Time of India
HC junks Rahul's plea, says free speech doesn't extend to remarks against Army
Lucknow: Observing that freedom of speech and expression is subject to reasonable restrictions and it does not include freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or to the Indian Army, the Lucknow bench of the Allahabad high court on May 29 dismissed Congress MP Rahul Gandhi's plea challenging a lower court summon in a defamation case over alleged derogatory remarks about the Indian Army during his . Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The single-judge bench of Justice Subhash Vidyarthi observed that the material on record made a prima facie case against Gandhi for making defamatory statement against Indian Army and hence the summoning order of lower court could not be set aside, and he would have to stand on trial. The case stems from a complaint filed by Udai Shanker Srivastava, retired director of the Border Roads Organization (a position equivalent to a Colonel in the Indian Army), in which he alleged that on Dec 16, 2022, during his 'Bharat Jodo Yatra' in Lucknow, Gandhi made disparaging comments about a face-off between the Indian and Chinese armies in Arunachal Pradesh on Dec 9, 2022. According to the complaint, Gandhi had said, "People will ask about Bharat Jodo Yatra, here and there, Ashok Gahlot and Sachin Pilot and whatnot. But they will not ask a single question about China capturing 2000 sq kms of Indian territory, killing 20 Indian soldiers and thrashing our soldiers in Arunachal Pradesh. But the Indian press doesn't ask a question to them about this. Isn't it true? The nation is watching all this. Don't pretend that people don't know." Srivastava contended that Gandhi's statement was "false and baseless" and made with "evil intention of demoralizing the Indian Army and to damage the faith of the Indian population in the Indian Army". He highlighted that the official statement from the Indian Army on Dec 12, 2022, confirmed that "PLA troops contacted the LAC in Tawang Sector which was contested by our troops in a firm and resolute manner. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now This faceoff led to minor injuries to a few personnel from both sides." The complainant said that Gandhi's "baseless and derogatory statement" deeply hurt him and other nationalists. The additional chief judicial magistrate, court no. 27, Lucknow, had on Feb 11, 2025, summoned Gandhi to face trial for the offence under Section 500 (defamation) of the Indian Penal Code. The lower court observed that prima facie, Gandhi's statement appeared to demoralize the Indian Army and its personnel and was not made in the performance of his official duties. Gandhi's counsel, Pranshu Agarwal, argued that the complaint was politically motivated and lacked merit. He contended that the complainant was not an "aggrieved person" under Section 199 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as the alleged defamation was against the Indian Army as an institution, not Srivastava directly. However, Justice Subhash Vidyarthi, rejected these arguments in his ruling and observed: "No doubt, Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India guarantees freedom of speech and expression, this freedom is subject to reasonable restrictions, and it does not include the freedom to make statements which are defamatory to any person or defamatory to the Indian Army." The court clarified that the complainant as an "aggrieved person" could file the complaint under Section 199 of CrPC. While dismissing Gandhi's plea challenging the lower court summons, Justice Vidyarthi also noted that the trial court's decision to summon Gandhi was based on a "judicious application of mind" after considering the complaint and witness statements, and was not mechanical.
