President Donald Trump spoke Thursday, March 20, 2025, to a crypto industry conference. (Photo illustration by Namthip Muanthongthae / Getty Images)
President Donald Trump signaled his continued support for cryptocurrency, saying at an industry conference Thursday morning he wanted to see the United States lead the world in digital asset technology.
In a brief recorded video broadcast to the Digital Assets Summit in New York, Trump, who launched his own meme coin in January that held an overall market value of $2.3 billion Thursday, noted some steps his administration has taken to encourage crypto. He positioned himself as a leading advocate for the technology but was vague about future policy proposals.
“It’s an honor to speak with you about how the United States is going to dominate crypto and the next generation of financial technologies,” he said. “And it’s not going to be easy, but we’re way ahead.”
Trump noted he held the first ever White House digital assets summit this month, appointed a White House artificial intelligence and crypto czar and created a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve and Digital Asset Stockpile.
The reserves would allow the government to retain the value of digital currencies, he said, adding that was impossible under his predecessor, Joe Biden.
Reversing policy
Trump said his administration would seek to loosen regulations, in a reversal from Biden policy.
“We’re ending the last administration’s regulatory war on crypto and bitcoin,” he said. “Frankly, it was a disgrace. But as of Jan. 20, 2025, all of that is over.”
He also said he’d asked Congress to create “simple, commonsense rules for stable coins and market structure.”
Despite looser regulations, the framework would lead to “greater privacy, safety, security and wealth for American consumers and businesses alike,” he said, calling the decentralized finance system “one of the most exciting technological revolutions in modern history.”
Trump’s ties to industry
The decentralized nature of cryptocurrency allows anyone to launch a currency, which has led to a series of so-called meme coins fronted by celebrities or tied to internet trends that form a particularly volatile segment of the crypto market.
Trump has a vested interest in the success of the crypto market, with a reported 80% stake in his own token.
Trump’s coin peaked at a value of $14.5 billion the day before his inauguration but has since lost nearly 85% of its value. The financial news service Reuters reported last month that firms generated nearly $100 million in trading fees associated with the Trump coin, even as its market value plummeted.
The seven members of the Wisconsin Supreme Court hear oral arguments. (Henry Redman | Wisconsin Examiner)
I’ve studied the rulings of the Wisconsin Supreme Court for well over a decade, and for most of that time, the court tended to put corporations and employers over workers or consumers. That has changed in the last couple of years. And now that voters have elected a pro-worker majority, billionaires like Elon Musk are spending big to return a pro-corporate majority to power.
In a 2023 report that I authored for People’s Parity Project Action, we found that the state Supreme Court had ruled for corporations or employers in most of the cases where individuals were on the other side. The report commented on the stakes of that year’s election: “Instead of the reactionary justices who’ve put corporations over workers, [Wisconsinites] could have a majority that gives everyone a fair shot.”
In the weeks after our report was released, around the time of the spring 2023 election, the high court ruled for workers or consumers in several cases. Later that year, Judge Janet Protaseiwicz was sworn in, forming a progressive, pro-democracy majority.
Around a year ago, this new majority ruled along ideological lines in a case that impacted workers across the state. The appeal involved unemployment insurance for Catholic Charities and some affiliated charities that help the poor and people with disabilities find jobs. The nonprofit employers tried to argue that they were exempt from the unemployment insurance system under the “ministerial” exception, which applies to employers that are both controlled by a religious organization and “operated primarily for religious purposes.”
The court ruled 4–3 that the organizations aren’t “operated primarily for religious purposes.” The justices examined the activities of the groups (job training, help with daily living activities, etc.) and concluded that they aren’t religious. As the court notes, the smaller charities weren’t even receiving funding from Catholic Charities and were primarily funded through government contracts.
The majority emphasized that the unemployment statute has always been interpreted broadly to cover as many workers as possible, ever since the state became the first to set up such a system in 1932. The statute says that unemployment compensation addresses an “urgent public problem” by sharing the burdens of unemployment.
This ruling meant that dozens of Catholic Charities workers and all of its sub-organizations’ employees — the people who help people in need find jobs — can get unemployment benefits if they lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The Freedom from Religion Foundation noted that a ruling in favor of Catholic Charities would have jeopardized unemployment insurance for thousands of workers at “religiously-affiliated hospitals and colleges.”
Justice Rebecca Bradley, whose dissent was partially joined by the other conservatives, began with a Bible verse and an invocation of “Jesus Christ himself.” She argued for deferring to an employer’s stated motivations to determine if its workers are ministerial.
Bradley also argued that the majority’s ruling violates the First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion. The case is now headed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which has expanded the First Amendment rights of religious employers at the expense of their workers. Though this case implicates the First Amendment, most cases involving workers only involve state law. This means that the Wisconsin Supreme Court gets the final say.
Right now, billionaires and corporations are spending big to end the pro-worker majority and put the state Supreme Court’s power back in the hands of right-wing justices who will rule in their favor. With Musk-aligned groups pouring in at least $12 million, spending in the race is on track to break the record for spending in a U.S. judicial election — a record set in 2023 in Wisconsin, the election that changed control of the court.
The pro-corporate majority that presided over the state for a decade-and-a-half first came to power in 2008. In that year’s election, corporate interests deliberately targeted a justice who had ruled against the manufacturers of dangerous lead paint. This majority was mired in conflicts of interest and bitter interpersonal conflicts. In 2010, they adopted an ethics rule that was literally written by a corporate-funded group that backed the conservative justices. A few years later, they shut down a campaign finance investigation into big business groups that had spent millions to get them elected.
For billionaires and corporations, the stakes are clear in this year’s high court election. Wisconsin judges are ruling on cases affecting voters, workers, and people facing criminal charges.
In one case, Musk’s Tesla car company is currently appealing a judge’s decision to deny it an exemption to a state law that prohibits car companies from owning car dealerships. Musk’s company wants to open four dealerships throughout the state — at a time when those dealerships are facing hundreds of protests in states around the country. If a Tesla customer sues the company, Musk would probably prefer that a pro-corporate judge hear the case.
With the court’s current majority in power, workers and consumers actually have a shot at justice. The justices have made progress in protecting democracy. They finally struck down gerrymandered election districts and overturned a prior ruling that barred the use of ballot drop boxes.
Musk and his wealthy friends want to take all of that away. But in Wisconsin, the voters decide who sits on their state’s highest court.