Hi, Zach. Thanks for your questions. Mulvaney may have some influence, but I generally do not have much optimism. There are aspects of regualtion that are non-negotiable, especially if the administation becomes as protectionistic as it seems it will. One of those aspects is the ware against financial crime and terrorism, and the enforcement of sanctions against "enemies of the state." Think about who the potential losers are if open blockchains thrive and you'll understand.
As to Trump's stance vis-à-vis remittances and immigrants, I think it was morst likely rallying cries than actual policy goals. Remittances will never go away, at least as long as the asymmetries between the northern and southern hemisphere ramain wide. His financial crime advisors know too well that crushing legal remittance channels would encourage the appearance of illegal ones. The loss of visibility in the flow of funds is one of the aspects the US and other governments are very concerned about (think tax evasion, terrorism financing). Of course, any impact on traditional channels could be an opportunity for cryptocurrencies (good and bad, legal and illegal, translucent and fully private) to become alternative remittance vehicles.