Trump Becomes First President to Address Crypto Conference; Leavitt: “$3 Trillion” on Education, “Only 28% Proficient in Math”

A March 2025 compilation featured President Trump making history as the first sitting president to address a cryptocurrency conference, declaring “we’re ending the last administration’s regulatory war on crypto and Bitcoin” and calling Operation Choke Point 2.0 “a form of lawfare through government weaponization.” Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt then delivered two forceful briefing segments: defending the administration’s deportation of foreign terrorists under the Alien Enemies Act and dismantling the case for the Department of Education by revealing that over $3 trillion in spending since the 1970s had produced test scores where “only 28% of 8th graders are proficient in math."

"Ending the Regulatory War on Crypto and Bitcoin”

Trump’s appearance at the crypto conference was itself a statement. No sitting president had ever addressed the cryptocurrency industry directly, and the decision to do so signaled that digital assets had moved from the margins of financial policy to the center of the administration’s economic agenda.

“We’re ending the last administration’s regulatory war on crypto and Bitcoin,” Trump said, “and that includes stopping the lawless Operation Choke Point 2.0.”

He then described what Choke Point 2.0 had meant in practice: “Operation Choke Point went beyond regulation, and I mean far beyond. It was a form of lawfare through government weaponization. Frankly, it was a disgrace.”

Trump declared the era over: “But as of January 20th, 2025, all of that is over.”

Operation Choke Point 2.0 was the informal name given to the Biden administration’s strategy of pressuring banks and financial institutions to cut off services to cryptocurrency companies. Rather than passing legislation or issuing formal regulations, the previous administration had used informal regulatory pressure to make it impossible for crypto businesses to maintain banking relationships. Companies that were operating legally found themselves unable to open accounts, process payments, or access basic financial services because their banks had been warned that serving crypto clients would invite regulatory scrutiny.

The strategy was “lawfare” in its purest form — using the threat of regulatory action to achieve policy goals that could not be accomplished through the legislative process. Trump’s characterization of it as “government weaponization” placed it in the same category as the DOJ investigations and judicial activism that the administration had been fighting on other fronts.

Legislative Framework: Stablecoins and Market Structure

Trump moved from criticism of the past to a vision for the future.

“I’ve also called on Congress to pass landmark legislation creating simple, common-sense rules for stablecoins and market structure,” he said. “With the right legal framework, institutions large and small will be liberated to invest, innovate, and take part in one of the most exciting technological revolutions in modern history.”

The call for stablecoin legislation was significant because it represented a shift from the Biden administration’s approach of regulating crypto through enforcement actions to Trump’s approach of creating a legal framework through legislation. The difference was fundamental: enforcement-based regulation punished activity after the fact and created uncertainty about what was permissible; legislative frameworks established clear rules in advance and allowed companies to operate with confidence.

The phrase “institutions large and small” was deliberate. The previous regulatory environment had disproportionately harmed smaller companies that could not afford the legal costs of fighting regulatory actions. Large institutions had the resources to navigate ambiguity; small startups did not. By creating clear rules, Trump was arguing, the government would democratize access to the crypto economy.

Leavitt: Alien Enemies Act Compliance

Leavitt addressed the ongoing judicial battle over the administration’s deportation of foreign terrorists.

“We’re 100% confident that we’ve complied,” Leavitt said. “And as I said from the podium, and will continue to say, all of the flights that were subject to the written order of the judge took off before the written order was issued in the courtroom.”

She defended the president’s authority: “The president is well within his Article II power and his authority under the Alien Enemies Act to make these decisions.”

Then the constitutional challenge: “And we think it’s egregious that a single district judge is trying to tell the President of the United States who he can and cannot deport from our soil, especially when it comes to designated foreign terrorists.”

The emphasis on “designated foreign terrorists” was the strongest rhetorical ground the administration could choose. Whatever one thought about broader immigration enforcement, the argument that a district court judge should be able to prevent the president from deporting individuals who had been formally designated as foreign terrorists was difficult to sustain. The president’s responsibility to protect national security was among the most fundamental of executive powers, and the question of who constituted a national security threat was precisely the kind of judgment the Constitution assigned to the executive branch.

”$3 Trillion” and Failing Test Scores

Leavitt’s most extensive segment addressed critics of the administration’s education policy.

“Where was their criticism of our nation’s failing test scores for the last several decades?” Leavitt asked, turning the question back on the administration’s detractors.

She then delivered the numbers: “The Department of Education was founded in the 1970s, and since then we have spent more than three trillion dollars at this federal bureaucracy. What has been the return on that investment for the American taxpayer?”

The answer: “Levels that are less than ideal, less than proficient. Our children’s test scores are incredibly concerning when it comes to reading rates, literacy rates, math and science test scores. The numbers prove that.”

The $3 trillion figure reframed the education debate entirely. The question was not whether the federal government should “invest in education” — a framing that made any reduction sound like abandonment — but whether $3 trillion of investment that had produced declining outcomes justified continuing the same approach. In any other context — a business, a program, a policy — spending trillions of dollars with measurably poor results would be grounds for fundamental restructuring.

Education to the States

Leavitt outlined the administration’s plan for the Department of Education.

“This president is finally taking much-needed action to return education to where it belongs, and that’s to educators closest to students in their classrooms, in their respective states,” she said.

She specified what would remain: “When it comes to student loans and Pell grants, those will still be run out of the Department of Education.”

And what would change: “But we don’t need to be spending more than three trillion dollars over the course of a few decades on a department that’s clearly failing in its initial intention to educate our students.”

When a reporter asked about the Department’s role in enforcing civil rights laws, Leavitt was direct: “Any critical functions of the department, such as that, will remain. But again, we’re greatly reducing the scale and the size of this department.”

She previewed an upcoming event: “We’re going to have a great event here later at four o’clock. There will be students here, teachers here, parents here, educators, and of course governors from around the country who are very excited about taking on this responsibility to educate our nation.”

The “governors who are excited” detail was important. The administration was not imposing a reduction in services on unwilling states; it was responding to governors who wanted the authority and resources to manage education themselves. The federal Department of Education, in this framing, was not a safety net but an obstacle — a $3 trillion middleman between taxpayers and the classrooms where education actually happened.

Key Takeaways

• Trump became the first sitting president to address a crypto conference, declaring the end of “Operation Choke Point 2.0” and calling it “lawfare through government weaponization.”
• He called on Congress to pass “landmark legislation” for stablecoins and market structure to liberate institutions “to invest, innovate, and take part in one of the most exciting technological revolutions.”
• Leavitt defended Alien Enemies Act deportations: “We think it’s egregious that a single district judge is trying to tell the President who he can and cannot deport, especially designated foreign terrorists.”
• She cited $3 trillion spent on the Department of Education since the 1970s with failing results: test scores showing only 28% of 8th graders proficient in math.
• Pell grants and student loans would remain at the department, but education authority would return to states, with governors “very excited about taking on this responsibility.”