Trump's sons deny involvement in ‘official' Trump memecoin wallet
As a quick catch-up: On Tuesday, crypto researcher Molly White dropped a scoop that said the president was about to launch a Trump-branded cryptocurrency wallet to encourage people to trade his $TRUMP memecoin — yet another product expanding the Trump family's reach in digital assets. (For the uninitiated, a crypto wallet is a kind of personal online vault for storing digital assets like cryptocurrencies.)
The project, White wrote, was being developed by the two Trump-family-run entities behind the memecoin in partnership with a crypto marketplace called Magic Eden.
A few hours later, Magic Eden confirmed White's reporting and pushed out its own announcement of the 'Official $TRUMP Wallet by President Trump.' The official Trump memecoin website also confirmed the launch in a post on X.
So far, just another day in crypto-land under Trump 2.0. The Trumps have raked in nearly $1 billion in paper gains (according to a Bloomberg estimate) through various ventures since the president's re-election in November, and the wallet seemed like just the latest project in an ever-expanding crypto empire.
But then, the story took a turn.
Trump's sons came out saying the family had 'zero involvement with this wallet product.'
Donald Trump Jr. posted that he and his brother Eric knew 'nothing about it,' but that separately one of their other crypto ventures, World Liberty Financial, would be launching an official wallet 'soon.' Even Barron Trump, who rarely posts on social media, chimed in to say the family 'has zero involvement with this wallet.'
It appears to be more than just a slight miscommunication.
As White noted in an update to her story, Magic Eden is a relatively big player in crypto, 'so this is not a case of some nobody creating a fake project pretending to be an official Trump-affiliated app.'
But it's far from clear how a run-of-the-mill wallet announcement turned into a public feud.
A Trump Organization spokeswoman wrote in an email to CNN that 'Eric and Don had no prior knowledge on this project and there is no agreement with The Trump Organization.'
Representatives for the Trump memecoin and Magic Eden didn't respond to CNN's request for comment Wednesday.
Just to underscore the point: Eric Trump appeared to threaten Magic Eden with a lawsuit in a post Tuesday night, telling the company 'I would be extremely careful using our name in a project that has not been approved and is unknown to anyone in our organization.' (Eric also told the New York Times that the Trump family would legally challenge the creation of the 'Official $TRUMP Wallet.'
This rift is surprising because of how closely connected the two sides are.
On one side we've got the Trump boys, on the other the folks at Magic Eden and the official $TRUMP memecoin.
Those two sides are hardly isolated strangers.
The Trump boys run the Trump Organization, which has an affiliate called CIC Digital, which shares the majority of $TRUMP memecoins with another company called Fight Fight Fight.
*Deep breath*
Fight Fight Fight is led by a longtime Trump business associate named Bill Zanker, who co-wrote a book with the president in 2008 and has worked on several Trump-related crypto projects, and it runs the $TRUMP website.
So, Zanker is not officially part of the Trump Org, but he is deeply connected to the president and the family's various crypto money-making operations. Zanker was the brains behind last month's memecoin dinner at Trump's DC-area golf club, Bloomberg's Olga Kharif wrote recently.
'Zanker's name is not on the website for the memecoin and he has avoided any comment on it,' Kharif writes. 'But on a Delaware corporate filing, Zanker is listed as the 'authorized person' for Fight Fight Fight LLC.'
The $3 trillion crypto industry has been thrilled to get a cheerleader in the White House who's promised to push friendly legislation and defang the regulators that have historically held crypto at arm's length.
But at the same time, many crypto executives and investors are holding their nose and looking the other way whenever Trump embraces some of the silly (at times scammy) elements of crypto-land. Like the memecoin, a joke-based subcategory of crypto that has no utility and is closely associated with 'rug-pull' scams. See also: the bitcoin strategic reserve and the pardoning of a notorious crypto criminal who was serving a life sentence for selling and distributing narcotics. Or the Trump $TRUMP dinner, widely criticized as selling access to the president.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt pushed back heavily on those criticisms during a press briefing hours before the May 22 dinner, telling reporters it was 'absurd for anyone to insinuate that this president is profiting off of the presidency.'
This confusion over the crypto wallet rollout isn't helping anyone trying to pitch crypto as a sophisticated market that's ready for prime time.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump calls on Fed Governor Cook to resign
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – U.S. President Donald Trump on Wednesday called on Federal Reserve Governor Lisa Cook to resign, citing a call by the head of the U.S. Federal Housing Finance Agency urging the Department of Justice to probe Cook over alleged mortgage fraud. Representatives for Cook could not be immediately reached for comment on the allegations posted by FHFA Director Bill Pulte on X earlier on Wednesday. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
3 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump thinks owning a piece of Intel would be a good deal for the US. Here's what to know
SAN FRANCISCO (AP) — President Donald Trump wants the U.S. government to own a piece of Intel, less than two weeks after demanding the Silicon Valley pioneer dump the CEO that was hired to turn around the slumping chipmaker. If the goal is realized, the investment would deepen the Trump administration's involvement in the computer industry as the president ramps up the pressure for more U.S. companies to manufacture products domestically instead of relying on overseas suppliers. What's happening? The Trump administration is in talks to secure a 10% stake in Intel in exchange for converting government grants that were pledged to Intel under President Joe Biden. If the deal is completed, the U.S. government would become one of Intel's largest shareholders and blur the traditional lines separating the public sector and private sector in a country that remains the world's largest economy. Why would Trump do this? In his second term, Trump has been leveraging his power to reprogram the operations of major computer chip companies. The administration is requiring Nvidia and Advanced Micro Devices, two companies whose chips are helping to power the craze around artificial intelligence, to pay a 15% commission on their sales of chips in China in exchange for export licenses. Trump's interest in Intel is also being driven by his desire to boost chip production in the U.S., which has been a focal point of the trade war that he has been waging throughout the world. By lessening the country's dependence on chips manufactured overseas, the president believes the U.S. will be better positioned to maintain its technological lead on China in the race to create artificial intelligence. Didn't Trump want Intel's CEO to quit? That's what the president said August 7 in an unequivocal post calling for Intel CEO Lip-Bu Tan to resign less than five months after the Santa Clara, California, company hired him. The demand was triggered by reports raising national security concerns about Tan's past investments in Chinese tech companies while he was a venture capitalist. But Trump backed off after Tan professed his allegiance to the U.S. in a public letter to Intel employees and went to the White House to meet with the president, who applauded the Intel CEO for having an 'amazing story.' Why would Intel do a deal? The company isn't commenting about the possibility of the U.S. government becoming a major shareholder, but Intel may have little choice because it is currently dealing from a position of weakness. After enjoying decades of growth while its processors powered the personal computer boom, the company fell into a slump after missing the shift to the mobile computing era unleashed by the iPhone's 2007 debut. Intel has fallen even farther behind in recent years during an artificial intelligence craze that has been a boon for Nvidia and AMD. The company lost nearly $19 billion last year and another $3.7 billion in the first six months of this year, prompting Tan to undertake a cost-cutting spree. By the end of this year, Tan expects Intel to have about 75,000 workers, a 25% reduction from the end of last year. Would this deal be unusual? Although rare, it's not unprecedented for the U.S. government to become a significant shareholder in a prominent company. One of the most notable instances occurred during the Great Recession in 2008 when the government injected nearly $50 billion into General Motors in return for a roughly 60% stake in the automaker at a time it was on the verge of bankruptcy. The government ended up with a roughly $10 billion loss after it sold its stock in GM. Would the government run Intel? U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CNBC during a Tuesday interview that the government has no intention of meddling in Intel's business, and will have its hands tied by holding non-voting shares in the company. But some analysts wonder if the Trump administration's financial ties to Intel might prod more companies looking to curry favor with the president to increase their orders for the company's chips. What government grants does Intel receive? Intel was among the biggest beneficiaries of the Biden administration's CHIPS and Science Act, but it hasn't been able to revive its fortunes while falling behind on construction projects spawned by the program. The company has received about $2.2 billion of the $7.8 billion pledged under the incentives program — money that Lutnick derided as a 'giveaway' that would better serve U.S. taxpayers if it's turned into Intel stock. 'We think America should get the benefit of the bargain,' Lutnick told CNBC. 'It's obvious that it's the right move to make.' Michael Liedtke, The Associated Press
The Hill
4 minutes ago
- The Hill
Repealing EPA's endangerment finding will cause a public health nightmare
As America faces increasing health threats from wildfire smoke, summer heat waves and rising cases of asthma and other respiratory illnesses, the last thing we need is to reverse laws that protect U.S. air quality. Yet, that's precisely what the Trump administration intends to do by proposing a repeal of a central scientific finding that serves as the basis for the Clean Air Act — legislation that has saved millions of American lives and been responsible for monumental advancements both to our environment and public health. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Administrator Lee Zeldin announced last month the agency plans to end a long-held 'endangerment finding' that asserts carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases present a risk to human health. If that happens, it will neutralize the federal government's ability to combat climate change and enforce laws intended to protect America's wellbeing. One of those laws is the Clean Air Act. Enacted in 1970, it has been one of the most successful public health policies in U.S. history. It's credited with reducing six of the most common air pollutants in the U.S. by nearly 80 percent while saving over 230,000 early deaths and avoiding over 120,000 emergency room visits every year. It has reduced chronic bronchitis, infant mortality and prevented millions of cases of asthma exacerbation as well. These statistics aren't conjecture: They're sourced directly from the EPA's own website, the same agency now leading the charge to turn the clock back on these remarkable achievements. Zeldin's announcement claims that the reversal of the endangerment finding will 'undo the underpinning of $1 trillion in costly regulations.' But the positive U.S. economic impact from the Clean Air Act alone far exceeds this figure. By reducing hospital visits, sick days and treatment of costly respiratory-related disease, the EPA estimates the Clean Air Act has created $2 trillion in U.S. economic benefit as of 2020 — twice the amount Zeldin asserts the endangerment finding's repeal would create. Further, clean energy has proven itself to be a source of strong job creation. The Department of Energy found that jobs in renewable energy grew more than twice as fast as the vibrant 2023 U.S labor market. And the science couldn't be clearer: Clean air is critical to public health. 'Decades of research have shown that air pollutants such as ozone and particulate matter increase the amount and seriousness of lung and heart disease and other health problems,' the EPA states. Worse, those pollutants are disproportionately burdened by communities of color. A 2024 Milken Institute of Public Health study found that marginalized communities have eight times the number of pediatric asthma cases and a 30 percent higher chance of dying early from pollution exposure. That same study attributed this inequality to the close proximity many minority communities share with industrial manufacturing facilities. Imagine what those numbers would be if the endangerment finding is reversed and the U.S. can no longer enforce Clean Air Act provisions. Zeldin referred to the EPA action as 'driving a dagger into the heart of the climate change religion,' and that it would be 'the largest deregulatory action in the history of America.' But doing so will only cause greater sickness in America and inundate an already stressed U.S. health care system. Increased exposure to air pollution will result in higher numbers of emergency room visits, increased rates of chronic illness and heightened health care costs. The medical and environmental advocacy community agree greater exposure to carbon dioxide and greenhouse gas is a bad idea. Groups such as the American Lung Association, American Public Health Association, American Thoracic Society, World Wildlife Fund, along with nursing organizations and medical societies all stand in strong opposition to the EPA's proposed action. Zeldin's proposal follows another questionable deregulatory move by the EPA in recent weeks to reintroduce dicamba, a weed killer used on soybeans and cotton. Use of the pesticide was halted by a federal court last year. A 2020 study in the International Journal of Epidemiology found that exposure to dicamba was reportedly 'linked to some cancers, including liver cancer and a type of leukemia affecting the blood and bone marrow.' But the EPA has argued it 'has not identified any human health or dietary risks of concern.' The U.S. government's job is to protect America's citizens. The Clean Air Act has saved millions of lives, safeguarded our skies and proven that environmental laws and economic progress can peacefully coexist. Repealing the endangerment finding will set America on a dangerous path and put the health and welfare of every American at risk.
