Crypto Giant Accused of Secretly Helping Trump Company Before Founder Pushed for Pardon
President Donald Trump once called Bitcoin a 'scam' but has since embraced cryptocurrency, saying he wants to make the U.S. the 'crypto capital of the world.'
His sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr. launched a crypto company called World Liberty Financial last year and released their stablecoin USD1—which is pegged to the U.S dollar—in March.
It turns out, though, that the basic code that powers USD1 was secretly written by Binance, the crypto exchange founded by Changpeng 'CZ' Zhao, who is seeking a presidential pardon, sources told Bloomberg.
That code allowed an Emirati investment firm to buy a $2 billion stake in Binance using USD1 instead of a competitor coin, according to Bloomberg. Binance also promoted USD1 to its 275 million users.
Around the same time that USD1 was released, Binance and World Liberty denied reports that they were in talks to develop a new stablecoin.
It's not clear whether World Liberty paid Binance or Zhao to create the coin, Bloomberg reported.
The assets backing the $2 billion in USD1 currently sitting in Binance wallets could generate tens of millions of dollars per year for the Trumps in interest income alone, according to the outlet.
Regulatory filings by another stablecoin issuer, Circle Internet Group Inc., also offer some insight into the market value of World Liberty Financial's relationship with Binance. Circle paid Binance $60 million up front to promote its coin and agreed to share future revenue with the exchange.
In 2023, Zhao and Binance were accused of violating federal U.S. laws designed to prevent money laundering. Both pled guilty, and Zhao paid a $50 million fine and stepped down from the company, which also paid $4.3 billion in fines.
Zhao was also sentenced to four months in prison after pleading guilty to felony money laundering charges. In March he denied seeking a pardon from the Trump administration, only to say in May that he had applied for one after all.
A spokesperson for Binance told Bloomberg that Zhao was no longer with the company and that his decision to apply for a pardon was 'a personal one.' A White House spokesperson declined to comment to Bloomberg. The Daily Beast has also requested comment.
A World Liberty spokesperson told the outlet that the report's claims were 'factually deficient and designed to further a political agenda,' though she declined to respond to specific questions and set the record straight.
Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
Melden Sie sich an, um Ihr Portfolio aufzurufen.
Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
Fehler beim Abrufen der Daten
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class
President Donald Trump's latest trade deal with China may look like a diplomatic win, but for the American middle class, it comes with hidden costs. Trending Now: Find Out: While tariffs are being reduced in exchange for promises from Beijing, households could still face higher prices, disrupted supply chains and reduced job growth. Here are four reasons Trump's trade deal with China is bad news for the middle class and what families can do to protect their finances. Higher Consumer Prices Despite Tariff Relief Even as the U.S. and China approach an August trade deal deadline, prices on many consumer goods remain elevated, and middle-class households continue to feel the strain. Some experts argue that the new tariffs may not drastically shift average import prices. However, middle-class families are more likely to feel the impact in specific categories, such as electronics, tools and household goods. 'U.S. companies scrambled to import as many goods as possible to stockpile before new tariffs were fully implemented, mitigating the immediate impact of tariffs on prices,' said Bryan Riley, Director of the Free Trade Initiative at the National Taxpayers Union. Riley said that since imports from China account for just 13.2% of total U.S. imports, increases in the price of specific Chinese goods may not push up the overall import average. However, they can still significantly affect middle-class budgets for everyday items. Read More: Erosion of Real Incomes and Job Losses An analysis by the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco warned that Trump's trade measures could cut national real income by around 0.4%, while losses in services and agriculture might offset job gains in manufacturing. 'What's pitched as economic growth is actually a slow bleed: Manufacturing jobs won't magically return, and small businesses relying on predictable import costs are about to face more whiplash,' said Patrice Williams Lindo, CEO of Career Nomad. 'Wages stay stagnant while everyday costs climb. And here's the kicker — there's no workforce investment baked into this deal. That means your job security, benefits and opportunities to grow could evaporate, especially if your industry leans heavily on exports or global sourcing.' Volatile Markets and Supply Chain Instability Although the China deal eased recession fears, experts said that uncertainty around ongoing tariffs still disrupts manufacturing and logistics. Businesses may hold back investment or retool supply chains, raising costs for middle-class consumers and slowing hiring. For example, uncertainty remains one of the most significant threats to economic momentum, particularly for businesses making long-term decisions. 'The real issue is that this deal doesn't create clarity. It reinforces an environment of 'wait and see,' Robert Khachatryan, CEO and founder of Freight Right. 'That's not how you build confidence in the economy.' Khachatryan added, 'You can't expect small and midsize businesses, who employ a huge portion of America's middle class, to plan for the future when they're stuck playing defense against the next round of tariffs.' Missed Middle-Class Priorities in the Deal While the latest Trump-China deal touts manufacturing wins, some economists warn it overlooks the broader economic trade-offs that directly affect the middle class. 'We have an experiment,' said Michael Froman, president of the Council on Foreign Relations, in a recent interview on Conversations with Jim Zirin. 'In 2018, President Trump imposed 25% tariffs on steel. Seven years later, we have 1,000 more steelworkers, but 75,000 fewer workers in manufacturing sectors that relied on steel, and a 30% drop in steel sector productivity.' This kind of trade-off may deliver political wins, but it overlooks how tariff-driven policies ripple into everyday life for the middle class. 'Over time, reduced job stability in trade-sensitive sectors and a slowdown in wage growth may exacerbate economic insecurity for families already stretched thin by inflation and debt servicing costs,' said Jean-Baptiste Wautier, a private equity CIO and World Economic Forum speaker. How To Protect Your Budget Middle-class families can shield themselves by using rewards or rebate programs and strategically stockpiling essentials before potential tariff increases. Julian Merrick, founder and CEO of Supertrader, a fintech firm focused on global markets, recommends starting with a small emergency fund, even setting aside $200 to $300, which can help families avoid debt when unexpected expenses arise. 'It also helps to cut back on spending in categories where prices are rising — things like tech, clothes or imported goods,' Merrick said. 'Families should avoid taking on new high-interest debt right now, especially for non-essentials. And for those with investments, make sure the money is spread out across different industries.' Editor's note on political coverage: GOBankingRates is nonpartisan and strives to cover all aspects of the economy objectively and present balanced reports on politically focused finance stories. You can find more coverage of this topic on More From GOBankingRates 6 Hybrid Vehicles To Stay Away From in Retirement This article originally appeared on 5 Reasons Trump's Trade Deal With China Is Bad News for the Middle Class Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Chicago Tribune
20 minutes ago
- Chicago Tribune
Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern seek 1st transcontinental railroad through a massive merger
OMAHA, Neb. (AP) — Union Pacific wants to buy Norfolk Southern in a $85 billion deal that would create the first transcontinental railroad in the U.S, and potentially trigger a final wave of rail mergers across the country. The proposed merger, announced Tuesday, would marry Union Pacific's vast rail network in the West with Norfolk's rails that snake across 22 Eastern states, and the District of Columbia. The nation was first linked by rail in 1869, when a golden railroad spike was driven in Utah to symbolize the connection of East and West Coasts. Yet no single entity has controlled that coast-to-coast passage. The railroads argue a merger would streamline deliveries of raw materials and goods nationwide by eliminating delays when shipments are handed off between railroads. The AP first reported the merger talks earlier this month a week before the railroads confirmed the discussions last week. Any deal would be closely scrutinized by antitrust regulators that have set a very high bar for railroad deals after previous consolidation in the industry led to massive backups and snarled traffic. If the deal is approved, the two remaining major American railroads — BNSF and CSX — will face tremendous pressure to merge to create a second transcontinental railroad so they can compete. The continent's two other major railroads — Canadian National and CPKC — may also get involved. The Canadian rails span all of that nation and feed into America. CPKC rails stretch south into Mexico Some big shippers like chemical plants in the Gulf may be wary of the deal due to fears of a monopoly that could would wield immense influence over rates, but other major rail customers, like Amazon and UPS, may be in favor if it means packages will arrive more quickly and reliably. Those big companies, along with unions and communities across the country that the railroads cross, will have a chance to weigh before the U.S. Surface Transportation Board. Consumers could benefit if the transcontinental rail does reduce shipping rates and delivery times. Union Pacific said that combined, the railroads would improve delivery times. There's speculation that this deal might win approval under the pro-business Trump administration, but the STB is currently evenly split between two Republicans and two Democrats. The board is led by a Republican, and Trump will appoint a fifth member before this deal will be considered. Union Pacific is offering $20 billion cash and one share of its stock to complete the deal. Norfolk Southern shareholders would receive one UP share and $88.82 in cash for each one of their shares as part of the deal that values NS at roughly $320 per share. Norfolk Southern closed at just over $260 a share earlier this month before the first reports speculating about a deal. Union Pacific's stock fell nearly 2% to $224.98 in premarket trading, while Norfolk Southern's stock dipped more than 3% to $277.40. Union Pacific CEO Jim Vena, who has championed a merger, said lumber from the Pacific Northwest and plastics produced on the Gulf Coast and steel made in Pittsburgh will all reach their destinations more seamlessly. 'It builds upon President Abraham Lincoln's vision of a transcontinental railroad from nearly 165 years ago, and will usher in a new era of American innovation,' Vena told investors Tuesday. U.S. railroads have already undergone extensive consolidation. There were more than 30 major freight railroads in the early 1980s. Today, six major railroads handle the majority of shipments nationwide. Western rival BNSF, owned by Berkshire Hathaway, has the war chest to pursue an acquisition of CSX, to the east, if it chooses. CEO Warren Buffett is sitting on more than $348 billion cash and the consummate dealmaker may want to swing for the fences one last time before stepping down as planned at the end of the year. Buffett recently threw cold water on reports that he had enlisted Goldman Sachs to advise him on a potential rail deal in an interview with CNBC, but he rarely uses investment bankers anyway. Buffett reached an agreement to buy the parts of the BNSF railroad he didn't already own for $26.3 billion after a private meeting with its CEO more than a decade ago. Yet there's widespread debate over whether a major rail merger would be approved by the Surface Transportation Board, which has established a high bar for consolidation in the crucial rail industry. That's largely due to the aftermath of a consolidation in the U.S nearly 30 years ago that involved Union Pacific. It merged with Southern Pacific in 1996 and the tie-up led to an extended period of snarled traffic on U.S. rails. Three years later, Conrail was divvied up by Norfolk Southern and CSX, which led to more backups in the East. 'We're committed to making sure that doesn't happen in this case,' said Norfolk CEO Mark George. He added that the railroads will spend the next two years planning for a smooth integration before this deal might get approved. Just two years ago, the STB approved the first major rail merger in more than two decades. In that deal, which was supported by big shippers, Canadian Pacific acquired Kansas City Southern for $31 billion to create the CPKC railroad. There were compelling factors in that deal, however, that combined the two smallest major freight railroads. The combined railroad, regulators reasoned, would benefit trade across North America. The deal announced Tuesday would merge the nation's largest freight railroad, with the smallest. Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern said they expect to submit their application for approval within the next six months and hope the deal would get approved by early 2027. They predict that they would be able to eliminate $1 billion in costs annually, but Vena said that every union worker at both railroads should still have a job. The railroads also predict they would be able to boost revenue by at least $1.75 billion each year by winning more business from trucking companies and other railroads. On Tuesday, Norfolk Southern reported a $768 million second-quarter profit, or $3.41 per share, as volume grew 3%. That's up from $737 million, or $3.25 per share, a year ago, but the results were affected by insurance payments from its 2023 East Palestine derailment and restructuring costs. Without the one-time factors, Norfolk Southern made $3.29 per share, which was just below the $3.31 per share that analysts surveyed by FactSet Research predicted.
Fast Company
20 minutes ago
- Fast Company
Trump's deportations could boost demand for foreign farmworkers
The U.S. has an important choice to make regarding agriculture. It can import more people to pick crops and do other kinds of agricultural labor, it can raise wages enough to lure more U.S. citizens and immigrants with legal status to take these jobs, or it can import more food. All three options contradict key Trump administration priorities: reducing immigration, keeping prices low and importing fewer goods and services. The big tax-and-spending bill President Donald Trump signed into law on July 4, 2025, included US$170 billion to fund the detention and deportation of those living in the U.S. without authorization. And about 1 million of them work in agriculture, accounting for more than 40% of all farmworkers. As the detention and deportation of undocumented immigrants ramps up, one emerging solution is to replace at least some deported farmworkers with foreigners who are given special visas that allow them to help with the harvest but require them to go home after their visas expire. Such 'guest worker' programs have existed for decades, leading to today's H-2A visa program. As of 2023, more than 310,000 foreigners, around 13% of the nation's 2.4 million farmworkers, were employed through this program. About 90% of the foreign workers with these visas come from Mexico, and nearly all are men. The states where the largest numbers of them go are California, Florida, Georgia and Washington. As a professor of Latin American politics and U.S.-Latin American relations, I teach my students to consider the difficult trade-offs that governments face. If the Trump administration removes a significant share of the immigrants living in the U.S. without legal permission from the agricultural labor force to try to meet its deportation goals, farm owners will have few options. Few options available First, farm owners could raise wages and improve working conditions enough to attract U.S. citizens and immigrants who are legal permanent residents or otherwise in the U.S. with legal status. But many agricultural employers say they can't find enough people to hire who can legally work – at least without higher wages and much-improved job requirements. Without any undocumented immigrant farmworkers, the prices of U.S.-sourced crops and other agricultural products would spike, creating an incentive for more food to be imported. Second, farm owners could employ fewer people. That would require either growing different crops that require less labor or becoming more reliant on machinery to plant and harvest. But that would mean the U.S. could have to import more food. And automation for some crops is very expensive. For others, such as for berries, it's currently impossible. It's also possible that some farm owners could put their land to other uses, ceasing production, but that would also necessitate more imported food. Trump administration's suggested fixes U.S. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has predicted that farm owners will soon find plenty of U.S. citizens to employ. She declared on July 8 that the new Medicaid work requirements included in the same legislative package as the immigration enforcement funds would encourage huge numbers of U.S. citizens to start working in the fields instead of losing their health insurance through that government program. For one thing, most adults enrolled in the Medicaid program who can work already do. Many others are unable to do so due to disabilities or caregiving obligations. Few people enrolled in Medicaid live close enough to a farm to work at one, and even those who do aren't capable of doing farmwork. When farm owners tried putting people enrolled in a welfare program to work in the fields in the 1990s, it failed. Another experiment in the 1960s, which deployed teenagers, didn't pan out either because the teens found the work too hard. It seems more likely that farm owners will try to hire many more foreign farmworkers to do temporary but legal jobs through the H-2A program. Although he has not made it an official policy, Trump seems to be moving toward this same conclusion. In June, for example, Trump said his administration was working on ' some kind of a temporary pass ' for immigrants lacking authorization to be in the U.S. who are working on farms and in hotels. Established in 1952, numbers now rising quickly The guest worker system, established in 1952 and revised significantly in 1986, has become a mainstay of U.S. agriculture because it offers important benefits to both the farm owners who need workers and the foreign workers they hire. There is no cap on the number of potential workers. The number of H-2A visas issued is based only on how many employers request them. Farm owners may apply for visas after verifying that they are unable to locate enough workers who are U.S. citizens or present in the U.S. with authorization. To protect U.S. workers, the government mandates that H-2A workers earn an ' adverse effect wage rate.' The Labor Department sets that hourly wage, which ranges from $10.36 in Puerto Rico to about $15 in several southern states, to more than $20 in California, Alaska and Hawaii. These wages are set at relatively high levels to avoid putting downward pressure on what other U.S. workers are paid for the same jobs. After certification, farm owners recruit workers in a foreign country who are offered a contract that includes transportation from their home country and a trip back – assuming they complete the contract. The program provides farm owners with a short-term labor force. It guarantees the foreign workers who obtain H-2A visas relatively high wages, as well as housing in the U.S. That combination has proven increasingly popular in recent years: The annual number of H-2A visas rose to 310,700 in 2023, a more than fivefold increase since 2010. Possible downsides Boosting the number of agricultural guest workers would help fill some gaps in the agricultural labor force and reduce the risk of crops going unharvested. But it seems clear to me that a sudden change would pose risks for workers and farm owners alike. Workers would be at risk because oversight of the H-2A program has historically been weak. Despite that lax track record, some unscrupulous farmers have been fined or barred from participating in the H-2A program because of unpaid wages and other abuses. Relying even more on guest farmworkers than the U.S. does today would also swap workers who have built lives and families north of the border with people who are in the U.S. on a temporary basis. Immigration opponents are unlikely to object to this trade-off, but to immigrant rights groups, this arrangement would be cruel and unfair to workers with years of service behind them. What's more, the workers with guest visas can be at risk of exploitation and abuse. In 2022, the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of Georgia described conditions for H-2A workers at an onion farm the government had investigated as ' modern-day slavery.' For farm owners, the downside of ramping up guest worker programs is that it could increase costs and make production less efficient and more costly. That's because transporting Mexican farmworkers back and forth each year is complicated and expensive. Farm groups say that compliance with H-2A visa requirements is cumbersome. It can be particularly difficult for small farms to participate in this program. Some farm owners have objected to the costs of employing H-2A workers. Rollins has said that the Trump administration believes that the mandatory wages are too high. To be sure, these problems aren't limited to agriculture. Hotels, restaurants and other hospitality businesses, which rely heavily on undocumented workers, can also temporarily employ some foreigners through the H-2B visa program – which is smaller than the H-2A program, limits the number of visas issued and is available only for jobs considered seasonal. Home health care providers and many other kinds of employers who rely on people who can't legally work for them could also struggle. But so far, there is no temporary visa program available to help them fill those gaps.
