Zhao

WASHINGTON — President Trump has pardoned Binance founder Changpeng Zhao, who created the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange and served prison time for failing to stop criminals from using the platform to move money connected to child sex abuse, drug trafficking and terrorism.

The pardon caps a monthslong effort by Zhao, a billionaire commonly known as CZ in the crypto world and one of the biggest names in the industry. He and Binance have been key supporters of some of the Trump family’s crypto enterprises.

“Deeply grateful for today’s pardon and to President Trump for upholding America’s commitment to fairness, innovation, and justice,” Zhao said on social media Thursday.

Zhao’s pardon is the last move by a president who has flexed his executive power to bestow clemency on political allies, prominent public figures and others convicted of crimes.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt announced the pardon in a statement and later told reporters in a briefing that the White House counsel’s office “thoroughly reviewed” the request. She said the administration of Democratic President Biden pursued “an egregious oversentencing” in the case, was “very hostile to the cryptocurrency industry” and Trump “wants to correct this overreach.”

The crypto industry has also long complained it was subject to a “regulation by enforcement” ethos under the Biden administration. Trump’s pardon of Zhao fits into a broad pattern of his taking a hands-off approach to an industry that spent heavily to help him win the election in 2024. His administration has dropped several enforcement actions against crypto companies that began during Biden’s term and disbanded the crypto-related enforcement team at the Justice Department.

Former federal prosecutor Mark Bini said Zhao went to prison for what “sounds like a regulatory offense, or at worst its kissing cousin.”

“So this pardon, while it involves the biggest name in crypto, is not very surprising,” said Bini, a white collar defense lawyer who handles crypto issues at Reed Smith.

Zhao was released from prison last year after receiving a four-month sentence for violating the Bank Secrecy Act. He was the first person ever sentenced to prison time for such violations of that law, which requires U.S. financial institutions to know who their customers are, to monitor transactions and to file reports of suspicious activity. Prosecutors said no one had ever violated the regulations to the extent Zhao did.

The judge in the case said he was troubled by Zhao’s decision to ignore U.S. banking requirements that would have slowed the company’s explosive growth.

“Better to ask for forgiveness than permission,” was what Zhao told his employees about the company’s approach to U.S. law, prosecutors said. Binance allowed more than 1.5 million virtual currency trades, totaling nearly $900 million, that violated U.S. sanctions, including ones involving Hamas’ al-Qassam Brigades, Al Qaeda and Iran, prosecutors said.

“I failed here,” Zhao told the court last year during sentencing. “I deeply regret my failure, and I am sorry.”

Zhao had a remarkable path to becoming a crypto billionaire. He grew up in rural China and his family immigrated to Canada after the 1989 Tiananmen Square massacre. As a teenager, he worked at a McDonald’s and became enamored with the tech industry in college. He founded Binance in 2017.

In addition to taking pro-crypto enforcement and regulatory positions, the president and his family have plunged headfirst into making money in crypto.

A stablecoin launched by World Liberty Financial, a crypto project founded by Trump and sons Donald Jr. and Eric, received early support and credibility thanks to an investment fund in the United Arab Emirates using $2-billion worth of World Liberty’s stablecoin to purchase a stake in Binance. Stablecoins are a type of cryptocurrency typically tied to the value of the U.S. dollar.

A separate World Liberty Financial token saw a huge spike in price Thursday shortly after news of the pardon was made public, with gains that far outpaced any other major cryptocurrency, according to data from CoinMarketCap.

Zhao said earlier this year that his lawyers had requested a pardon.

It is not immediately clear what effect Trump’s pardon of Zhao may have for operations at Binance and Binance.US, a separate arm of the main exchange offering more limited trading options to U.S. residents.

Weissert and Suderman write for the Associated Press. Suderman reported from Richmond, Va.

Oct. 23 (UPI) — President Donald Trump has pardoned Binance cryptocurrency exchange founder Changpeng Zhao, who had pleaded guilty to money laundering charges in 2023.

The guilty plea was part of a $4.3 billion settlement between Binance and the Justice Department to end the investigation into the world’s largest cryptocurrency exchange, CBS News reported.

Binance paid the settlement after the DOJ determined it helped users to get around federal sanctions.

The settlement required Zhao to resign from his position as Binance’s chief executive officer and serve four months in prison.

The Binance settlement also caused the Philippines to order Google and Apple to remove the Binance app from their respective app offerings.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said Zhao’s plea deal and the investigation against Binance arose from what she called the Biden administration’s “war on cryptocurrency,” as reported by The Hill.

“In their desire to punish the cryptocurrency industry, the Biden administration pursued Mr. Zhao despite no allegations of fraud or identifiable victims,” Leavitt said in a prepared statement.

“The Biden administration sought to imprison Mr. Zhao for three years, a sentence so outside sentencing guidelines that even the judge said he had never heard of this in his 30-year career,” Leavitt added.

“These actions by the Biden administration severely damaged the United States’ reputation as a global leader in technology and innovation.”

The president issued the pardon in accordance with his constitutional authority, she said, adding that “the Biden administration’s war on crypto is over.”

In a social media post in which he identified himself as “CZ,” Zhao thanked the president “for upholding America’s commitment to fairness, innovation and justice” by pardoning him.

He said he will “help make America the capital of crypto” and help make decentralized web3 Internet technology available globally.

Zhao’s pardon came after a news report indicated that Binance assists the Trump family with its cryptocurrency endeavor.

The Wall Street Journal two months ago reported that a cryptocurrency venture created by the Trump family has accrued $4.5 billion with the help of Binance since the president won the Nov. 5 election, according to CNBC.

With “One Battle After Another” sporting a large lead in the best picture race, it’s no surprise its beloved auteur, 11-time nominee Paul Thomas Anderson, would enjoy a similar cushion in the directing category in Round 1.

Amy Nicholson says “One Battle” “isn’t his best film — deciding that would start a real fistfight — but it’s worthy enough to claim a prize that’s long overdue.” Glenn Whipp writes, “The list of great directors who never won an Oscar is ridiculous. Kubrick, Hitchcock, Altman, Fellini. Could this be the year that [Anderson] breaks out of that club, distinguished though it may be?”

Noting Anderson could bump that nominations total to 14 this year (as writer, director and producer), Dave Karger says, “This category could well contain two female filmmakers for the first time in five years,” naming Bigelow and Zhao among his picks.

Katie Walsh points out that, surprisingly, “Ryan Coogler has never been nominated for best director, and Jafar Panahi threads an incredible tonal needle.”

Best picture | Best animated feature | Best international feature

1. Paul Thomas Anderson, “One Battle After Another”
T2. Kathryn Bigelow, “A House of Dynamite”
T2. Ryan Coogler, “Sinners”
4. Chloé Zhao, “Hamnet”
5. Jafar Panahi, “It Was Just an Accident”
6. Joachim Trier, “Sentimental Value”
7. Park Chan-wook, “No Other Choice”
8. Bill Condon, “Kiss of the Spider Woman”

RogerEbert.com

Robert Daniels

1. Kathryn Bigelow, “A House of Dynamite”
2. Paul Thomas Anderson, “One Battle After Another”
3. Jafar Panahi, “It Was Just an Accident”
4. Chloé Zhao, “Hamnet”
5. Joachim Trier, “Sentimental Value”

“With 11 prior nominations and zero wins, the Oscar has long eluded Paul Thomas Anderson. But with ‘One Battle After Another’ earning raves and an academy that has honored overdue directors three of the last four ceremonies (Jane Campion, Christopher Nolan, Sean Baker), maybe this is his year.”

Turner Classic Movies

Dave Karger

1. Paul Thomas Anderson, “One Battle After Another”
2. Kathryn Bigelow, “A House of Dynamite”
3. Chloé Zhao, “Hamnet”
4. Joachim Trier, “Sentimental Value”
5. Jafar Panahi, “It Was Just an Accident”

“On nomination day, 11-time Oscar nominee Paul Thomas Anderson will likely become a 14-time Oscar nominee. Surprisingly, he’s never won in any category. But this could certainly be his year. Meanwhile, this category could well contain two female filmmakers for the first time in five years.”

Los Angeles Times

Amy Nicholson

1. Paul Thomas Anderson, “One Battle After Another”
2. Ryan Coogler, “Sinners”
3. Kathryn Bigelow, “A House of Dynamite”
4. Park Chan-wook, “No Other Choice”
5. Bill Condon, “Kiss of the Spider Woman”

“Paul Thomas Anderson has 11 Academy Award nominations (no surprise there) and zero wins. What!? ‘One Battle After Another’ isn’t his best film — deciding that would start a real fist fight — but it’s worthy enough to claim a prize that’s long overdue.”

IndieWire

Anne Thompson

1. Paul Thomas Anderson, “One Battle After Another”
2. Ryan Coogler, “Sinners”
3. Chloé Zhao, “Hamnet”
4. Kathryn Bigelow, “A House of Dynamite”
5. Joachim Trier, “Sentimental Value”

“If ‘Sinners’ wins best picture, director could go to ‘One Battle After Another’s’ Paul Thomas Anderson after 11 nominations (and no wins) for arguably his most bravura movie to date. Both ‘Hamnet’ director Chloé Zhao and ‘House of Dynamite’s’ Kathryn Bigelow have won before.”

Tribune News Service

Katie Walsh

1. Paul Thomas Anderson, “One Battle After Another”
2. Ryan Coogler, “Sinners”
3. Jafar Panahi, “It Was Just an Accident”
4. Chloé Zhao, “Hamnet”
5. Kathryn Bigelow, “A House of Dynamite”

“It has to be Anderson, but I can see the academy recognizing former winners like Kathryn Bigelow and Chloé Zhao. Ryan Coogler has never been nominated for best director, and Jafar Panahi threads an incredible tonal needle with ‘It Was Just an Accident’ (the Palme d’Or helps too).”

Los Angeles Times

Glenn Whipp

1. Paul Thomas Anderson, “One Battle After Another”
2. Ryan Coogler, “Sinners”
3. Chloé Zhao, “Hamnet”
4. Joachim Trier, “Sentimental Value”
5. Kathryn Bigelow, “A House of Dynamite”

“The list of great directors who never won an Oscar is ridiculous. Kubrick, Hitchcock, Altman, Fellini. Could this be the year that Paul Thomas Anderson breaks out of that club, distinguished though it may be? With ‘One Battle After Another,’ he has the movie to do it.”

TELLURIDE, Colo. — It’s customary at Telluride for a director premiering a movie to step onstage, say a few words and slip away before the lights go down. On Friday night, before unveiling her new film “Hamnet,” Chloé Zhao admitted she couldn’t find the right words. For a film centered on William Shakespeare, the most famous wordsmith in history, that felt oddly fitting.

Instead, the 43-year-old Zhao led the packed Palm Theater in a meditative “ritual” she and her cast had practiced throughout the shoot, from before the script was even written until the final day on set. She asked the audience to close their eyes, place a hand over their hearts and feel the weight of their bodies in the seats and the surrounding Rocky Mountains holding them safe. Together, the crowd exhaled three long, loud sighs, then tapped their chests in unison, repeating softly: “This is my heart. This is my heart. This is my heart.”

By the time the film ended, those same hearts were left aching. Adapted from Maggie O’Farrell’s 2020 novel, “Hamnet” tells the story of Shakespeare’s marriage to Agnes (played by Jessie Buckley) and the devastating death of their 11-year-old son, Hamnet. Paul Mescal plays Shakespeare — not the untouchable bard of legend but a husband and father reckoning with grief. At once grounded and dreamlike, the film drew perhaps the most rapturous and unanimous response of any debut in this year’s lineup.

Eight years ago, Zhao came to Telluride with “The Rider,” fresh from Cannes and still largely unknown. In 2020 she returned with “Nomadland,” which received a Telluride-sponsored drive-in screening at Pasadena’s Rose Bowl due to the pandemic and went on to win best picture and make Oscar history, with Zhao becoming only the second woman — and the first and only woman of color — to win the directing prize. Then came Marvel’s “Eternals,” a massive undertaking that thrust Zhao into the franchise machine and brought with it a bruising critical reception. With “Hamnet,” she’s back to a smaller canvas, trading cosmic spectacle for intimate human drama.

On Sunday morning in Telluride, still processing the reaction to her latest film, Zhao sat down to talk — speaking so softly that even in a hushed room her words can be hard to catch — about why she took on O’Farrell’s story, how she approached Shakespeare’s world and the delicate task of turning heartbreak into art.

Jessie Buckley, center, in the movie “Hamnet.”

(Agata Grzybowska / Focus Features)

When I interviewed you for “The Rider” in 2018 you said you’re a very pessimistic person and when you get a good review, you’re just waiting for the bad one to drop. What are you feeling right now? Did you expect anything like the reaction “Hamnet” has received?
I was nervous. I’ve walked through fires. I’ve been through the fire — a very painful fire — and I think there is probably a bit of fear around that.

What was the fire? You mean the reaction to “Eternals”?
I’m not going to say out it loud, because when I do, things always get … [trails off]. Let’s just say we were very scared.

I think the fear mainly came from the fact that we felt so sure of what we experienced. It changed all of our lives and mine so profoundly that it’s still reverberating. You think: Were we crazy? And no one else will get it but us?

You go through this long, treacherous journey to deliver these things to safety and now it’s very tender because you look back at all the loss and the sacrifices along the way and you haven’t really had time to process it.

I’m curious what your history was with Shakespeare growing up in China and then moving to England and later Los Angeles as a teenager. What kind of early impression did he make on you?
Shakespeare is very revered in China. In Chinese theater, they do Chinese versions of his plays. When I studied in the U.K., I didn’t speak English at the time and I did have to learn Shakespeare, which was very difficult. I don’t think I’m anywhere near where Paul and Jesse are with their understanding of Shakespeare. The language was always a barrier but the archetypal element of his stories was big for me — particularly “Macbeth.” In high school in Los Angeles, I performed Lady Macbeth’s speech on the stage because everybody had to do some kind of monologue for a project. And I barely spoke English.

You’ve said you initially weren’t sure that you were the right person to direct this movie. What was your hesitation?
There were three elements to that. One is that I’m not a mother. I never felt particularly maternal. People in my life say, “That’s not true, Chloé,” but I don’t see myself stepping into that archetype at all. The second was the idea of a period film — how can I be authentic and fluid in a period film, where you can’t just make things up in the moment, you can’t be spontaneous? The third was Shakespeare. I wondered if I needed to be scholarly.

So how did you come around?
I was driving near Four Corners, New Mexico, when Amblin called. I said, “No, thank you.” Steven [Spielberg] really wanted me to consider it. Then my agent said Paul Mescal wanted to meet me. I didn’t know his work. “Aftersun” was the secret screening here [in Telluride 2022], and we went for a walk by the creek. I watched him talking and thought, “Could he play young Shakespeare?” He already read the book. Then I read it and thought, if Maggie [O’Farrell] can write this with me, she can show me that world. As soon as I read the book, I said, “Can you set a meeting with Jessie Buckley?” I couldn’t see anyone else but her as Agnes.

Paul Mescal as William Shakespeare in the movie “Hamnet.”

(Agata Grzybowska / Focus Features)

You’d just come off “Eternals” after making small films like “Songs My Brothers Taught Me” and “Nomadland.” Now you’re back with something more intimate again. Did it feel like a reset?
Every child has its own beauty and troubles. This budget was maybe six or seven times “Nomadland,” but much less than “Eternals.” But it’s also a period film, which has its own challenges. I come from a tradition of: Tell me how much money you have and I’ll make something with it.

But I changed a lot after “Nomadland” and “Eternals.” In my 30s, I wanted to chase the horizon. I didn’t want it to ever end. I’d just keep running. Then, at the end of “Eternals,” I felt I couldn’t film another sunset that would satisfy me the way in the way it had with “The Rider” and “Nomadland.” I went through a lot of difficult personal times and pushing midlife, I realized I’d been running like a cowboy, like a nomad.

When you stop running and stop chasing horizons and you stay still, the only place you can go is above or below. I descended pretty heavily these last four years. By the time I got to “Hamnet,” I was ready. The difference now is a different kind of humanity: older, more vertical.

We know so little about Shakespeare or his son. Some parts of your film are grounded, others dreamlike. How did you balance that?
First of all, what’s real? Ancient mystics tried to understand what is being. “To be or not to be” goes beyond suicidal thought — it’s about existence itself. Every film has its own truth. For me, the truest thing is what’s present in the moment. I hired department heads and actors with knowledge of the history, but also the capacity to stay present and shift as we go. If someone came in too factual and literal, I said no. I wanted people who could do the research but also stay alive to the present.

Shakespeare’s name isn’t even spoken until late in the movie. This isn’t the icon — he’s a husband and father. Was it appealing to free him from the iconography?
Maggie’s book laid the foundation, really focusing on Agnes. For the film, I wanted it to be about two people who see and are seen by each other. They’re archetypal characters. I’ve studied Jungian psychology and Hindu Tantra — the energies of masculine and feminine, being and doing, birth and death. If we don’t have a healthy connection to our roots, those forces battle within us. By creating two characters who embody that, the story can work at a collective level and an internal one. The alchemy of creativity lets those forces coexist. Hopefully it becomes something more than a story about marriage or the death of a child.

Jessie Buckley and Paul Mescal in the movie “Hamnet.”

(Agata Grzybowska / Focus Features )

The loss of a child is hard to film and for audiences to watch. We’ve seen it tackled in different ways on screen, from “Ordinary People” to “Manchester by the Sea.” How did you approach portraying that kind of grief honestly without it being too much for the audience to bear?
It might be for some people, which is understandable. I love both those films you mentioned very much and watched them multiple times. I’ve been making films about grief for a while. I don’t think about what’s too much or too little. Agnes’ wailing — I could do that right now in front of you. We should be allowed to. The silence for thousands of years has done great damage.

How do you mean?
Think about ancient warriors coming back from battle — they danced, screamed, healed together. In Tantra, sexuality was part of healing. Now it’s: Talk to a therapist, take medication, go back to your family. The body is restricted. Telling a woman to be quiet when she gave birth and pinning her down. We know why this control happens. But I think people are responding to films where actors are embodied, because we miss that.

How do you see grief as a through-line in all your films?
All my films start with characters who’ve lost what defined them: dreams, home, purpose, faith. They grieve who they thought they were in order to become who they truly are. That’s grief on an individual and collective level. I wasn’t raised to understand grief. So I made films to give characters catharsis and through that, myself.

My friend [“Sinners” director] Ryan Coogler, who knows me so well, sat me down after seeing “Hamnet” and he said, “The other films were beautiful but you hid behind things. This is the first time I saw you in there. You’re finally being seen.” It took four films, working with that kind of grief and fear to get to that point.

The Oscar chatter has already started. You’ve obviously been through this before. How do you tune that out and just focus on what’s in front of you?
The same way that me, Paul and Jessie were doing on set. We made the film by being present. It’s difficult, so I’m trying to take that practice daily — just saying, “OK, today is all we have.” It’s flattering and nice but after what I’ve experienced in my career, you cannot possibly predict how things are going to go. I never expected “Nomadland” to go on that journey. So I surrender to the river.

Do you know what you’re doing next?
I just wrapped the pilot on the new “Buffy the Vampire Slayer” series, which is set 25 years later. My company is part of developing it. The fandom is so special to me and I’m excited about how that’s going to go into the world. Then I think I want to do a play. I was working on “Our Town” and I had to let that go in order to do “Hamnet.” But I figured maybe I’ll learn something from this film and come back to the stage.

The industry feels pretty shaky right now: fewer jobs, studio consolidation, anxiety around AI. As a filmmaker, how do you see the state of the business and the art form?
I sense we’re at a threshold — not just the film business, everything. It’s uncomfortable. We’re like Will standing at the edge of the river when, at least in our film, the “to be or not to be” monologue was born. We can’t go back and we don’t know how to go forward. In physics, when two opposing forces pull so strongly, a new equilibrium bursts out. That’s how the universe expands. I think we’re there. We can kick and scream or we can surrender, hug our loved ones and focus on what we can do today.

Hopefully I’m not so pessimistic now. Or at least a little bit less.