Donald Trump May Have Broken Federal Law at Meme Coin Dinner: Attorney
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources.
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
President Donald Trump's recent dinner with backers of a meme coin project is under legal scrutiny, with an attorney suggesting the president may have violated federal law.
Trump hosted more than 200 top investors in his personal $TRUMP meme coin on Thursday night at an exclusive, high-profile dinner at his private golf club in Sterling, Virginia.
The coin, which launched in January 2025, is currently valued at more than $3 billion. The event rewarded the largest investors in his cryptocurrency venture, something that even ardent MAGA fans have raised concerns over.
Newsweek has contacted the White House for comment via email.
Why It Matters
Analysts say Trump's ownership of this cryptocurrency creates a potential conflict of interest amid his support of the cryptocurrency industry at large.
What To Know
"The country is doing really well. We have no inflation. Costs are way down. Oil was just at $1.99, $1.98 a gallon, which we haven't seen in years," Trump told guests in a video recorded at the event.
But Tracey Beryl Gallagher, a public defender in California and former judge pro tem, said on X that Trump's remarks may have violated federal law.
"He is talking behind a podium bearing the Presidential Seal. The Presidential Seal is governed by strict regulations under federal law, primarily 18 U.S.C. § 713 and Executive Order 11649," she wrote.
President Donald Trump arrives on Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, New Jersey on May 23, 2025.
President Donald Trump arrives on Air Force One at Morristown Municipal Airport in Morristown, New Jersey on May 23, 2025.
Manuel Balce Ceneta/AP
Those rules, she said, limit its use to "official government purposes to preserve its symbolic integrity."
"Using the seal at a personal, for-profit event like a money-making speaking engagement or private fundraiser would likely violate these regulations, as it could imply official government endorsement of a private activity," she wrote. "The law prohibits using the seal in a manner that suggests government approval or affiliation for non-official events."
Gallagher pointed to cases including United States v. Sindel from 1995, where misuse of government insignia led to penalties. While some exceptions are allowed for certain ceremonial or educational uses, such as replicas at presidential libraries, "personal financial gain doesn't qualify," she noted.
Since his second term began, Trump has openly plugged cryptocurrency schemes officially run by his sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr. that are now reportedly a significant source of the president's family's wealth.
In April, a website promoting $TRUMP invited the top 220 holders of the meme coin to a private dinner with the president, where they received an exclusive reception and a VIP tour the following day, prompting the value of $TRUMP to soar by more than 50 percent, according to CoinMarketCap.
At the same time, the Trump administration has taken a pro-crypto stance, easing up on Biden-era regulation of the industry and establishing a bitcoin reserve. But such actions have prompted concerns that he is simultaneously promoting and profiting from a personal cryptocurrency and that his policy positions may be influenced by personal financial gain.
As a result, Senators Jeff Merkley and Chuck Schumer have introduced legislation aimed at prohibiting senior executive branch officials and their families from profiting from cryptocurrencies.
Meanwhile, lawmakers and ethics experts have criticized Trump's decision to hold yesterday's dinner.
"What's happening tonight at Trump's golf course…is in effect, putting a 'For Sale' sign on the White House. It's auctioning off access," Senator Richard Blumenthal said during a press call organized by Accountable.US, a nonpartisan watchdog group in the crypto space.
Daniel Weiner, the director for elections and government at the Brennan Center for Justice, told Scripp News: "It's completely unprecedented to have a United States president attending a dinner like this. For wealthy investors in business that he owns who can pay hundreds of thousands or even millions of dollars for access to the president. Let's be clear, of course, presidents do — other presidents and this president — have had fundraisers for their campaigns and lavish dinners and the like. But to have it literally be for a business that's essentially putting money into the president's pocket — that's something new and unprecedented and, I think a lot of Americans would say, pretty troubling."
Representatives Sean Casten and Adam Smith called for a Department of Justice investigation into the event, citing concerns over foreign influence and potential violations of the Emoluments Clause. They highlighted that the top 25 investors were promised a private tour of the White House, suggesting an inappropriate intertwining of personal business interests with official government functions
Further criticism has come from ethics watchdogs. Donald Sherman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington described the event as "one of the most blatant and appalling instances of selling access to the presidency."
Investors invited to the dinner—who participated in a kind of spending lotto since they had to compete to be the biggest payers—spent a total of $394 million on the $TRUMP cryptocurrency for access to the president, according to NBC News, citing blockchain analytics company Nansen.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt emphasized that the recent dinner with top $TRUMP investors was a personal event, not affiliated with official government activities. She stated "The president is attending it in his personal time," and noted that the administration would consider releasing the list of attendees upon internal review.
Cryptocurrencies are digital currencies traded like foreign currencies, with popular examples including Bitcoin, Ethereum, and Ripple. Advocates highlight their potential for financial inclusion and privacy, while large-cap coins often draw attention for their possible use cases, such as serving as a hedge against inflation. Meme coins, however, typically lack intrinsic value or utility, relying on celebrity endorsements, viral trends, and online buzz. DOGE, one of the most famous meme coins, exemplifies this model, though its initial joke concept has yet to translate into real utility.
Meme coins are prone to volatility, driven by hype rather than fundamentals, and often become targets for scams like "pump and dump" schemes. Such scams exploit investor enthusiasm and poor regulation to inflate prices before insiders sell off their holdings. Legal experts warn that meme coins can resemble Ponzi schemes.
Donald Trump's $TRUMP cryptocurrency, launched as a meme coin in January 2025, has fallen sharply in value despite its initial surge, and its official materials explicitly state it has no investment value. While Trump's meme coin does not appear to be an outright scam, its resemblance to other meme coin models has raised eyebrows. Meanwhile, the Senate is advancing legislation aimed at regulating stablecoins, a class of cryptocurrencies tied to stable assets.
What People Are Saying
Tracey Gallagher said on X: "He is talking behind a podium bearing the Presidential Seal. The Presidential Seal is governed by strict regulations under federal law, primarily 18 U.S.C. § 713 and Executive Order 11649.
"These rules restrict its use to official government purposes to preserve its symbolic integrity. Using the seal at a personal, for-profit event like a money-making speaking engagement or private fundraiser would likely violate these regulations, as it could imply official government endorsement of a private activity.
"The law prohibits using the seal in a manner that suggests government approval or affiliation for non-official events. Courts have upheld this, as seen in cases like United States v. Sindel (1995), where misuse of government insignia was penalized. Exceptions exist for specific ceremonial or educational uses (e.g., replicas at presidential libraries), but personal financial gain doesn't qualify."
What Happens Next
The White House has not responded to Gallagher's remarks.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
27 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Elon Musk and Donald Trump May Bury the Hatchet
Good morning. Elon Musk and Donald Trump may be coming to their senses. 'America First' is turning into 'America the Avoidable.' And not even the legacy of Trump's mother can save Harris Tweed. Listen to the day's top stories. Keep calm and carry on. Signs are Donald Trump and Elon Musk may be heading toward a detente, but nothing is for certain quite yet. Musk has signaled he's open to cooling tensions and backed off on a threat to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft. White House aides have scheduled a call with the Tesla CEO to broker peace, according to Politico. Here's a timeline of their very public spat.
CNN
29 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: What exactly is Trump's new travel ban about? Not national security
Any reasonable American could objectively ask what exactly President Donald Trump's new travel ban, which affects a dozen countries, is about. Is it about protecting Americans from 'murderers,' as Trump said Thursday, or punishing small countries for a modest number of students who overstayed their visas? The drive for Trump's first-term travel ban in 2017 and 2018 was clear. He was seeking to deliver on an ugly campaign promise to ban all Muslims from entering the US. That morphed, over the course of years as the administration adapted to court cases, into a ban on travel to the US by people from certain countries, most of which were majority-Muslim. It was only by agreeing to ignore Trump's anti-Muslim 2016 campaign statements and focus solely on the security-related language in his third attempt at a travel ban that the US Supreme Court ultimately gave its blessing to that ban. '… We must consider not only the statements of a particular President, but also the authority of the Presidency itself,' wrote Chief Justice John Roberts in the majority opinion. Trump is using that authority again in his second term. But this time, as he said Thursday in the Oval Office, the ban is about removing 'horrendous' people who are in the country now and about keeping murderers out. The data suggest the travel ban will primarily affect students and businesspeople from countries in Africa, Asia and the Caribbean as well as the Middle East. It was an attack on Jewish community members in Colorado by an Egyptian national that convinced Trump to speed up plans to ban people from a dozen countries from entering the US, restarting the travel ban policy he pioneered during his first term. But Egypt is not on the travel ban list. Neither is Kuwait, the country where Mohamed Sabry Soliman, the suspect in the Boulder attack, lived before coming to the US. 'Egypt has been a country we deal with very closely. They have things under control,' Trump told reporters Thursday. Instead, the travel ban includes countries that Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who assembled the list, feel don't have things under control. That includes places like Equatorial Guinea in Africa and Burma, also known as Myanmar, in Asia. Neither is a nexus of terror threatening the American homeland. Trump's order announcing the travel ban explains that these countries have high rates of students and other travelers overstaying their visas in the US. It points to a report of DHS 'overstay' data from 2023 to argue that for more than 70% of people from Equatorial Guinea with US student visas, there is no record of them leaving the US when their visa ended. In real numbers, that equals 233 people with student visas. The numbers are similarly small for other African countries. 'They're just throwing things at the wall,' said David Bier, an immigration expert at the libertarian-leaning Cato institute and a Trump immigration policy critic. 'There's not really a coherent philosophy behind any of this,' Bier added. The reinstated travel ban does include countries associated with terrorism, including Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen, all of which were also included in Trump's first-term travel ban. But it's worth noting that no immigrant or traveler from one of these countries has launched a terror attack on the US in recent years, according to a review by the Washington Post during Trump's first term. A man from Sudan killed one person at a Tennessee church in 2017. 'The president claims that there is no way to vet these nationals, yet that is exactly what his consular officers and border officials have successfully done for decades,' Bier said. The man responsible for the ISIS-inspired truck bomb in New Orleans in January, Shamsud-Din Jabbar, was a Texas-born Army veteran and US citizen. The new travel ban also includes Afghanistan, which could jeopardize many Afghans related to those who aided the US during its war there, as Shawn VanDiver, president of the aid organization #AfghanEvac, told CNN's Jim Sciutto on Thursday. 'There are 12,000 people who have been separated through the actions of our government, who have been waiting for more than three and a half years,' he said. The Trump administration recently paused the processing of student visas, interrupting the plans of thousands of people to study in the US. In the Oval Office, Trump said he was not interested in banning students from China. 'It's our honor to have them, frankly, we want to have foreign students, but we want them to be checked,' Trump said, suggesting there will be even more strenuous background checks in the future. The existence of the travel ban list could also factor into tariff negotiations the Trump administration has taken on with nations across the world, as well as its effort to countries nations to take back migrants it wants to deport. 'It's about power and control and manipulating both the US population to suppress dissent as well as trying to manipulate foreign relations with these countries by getting them to do whatever he wants in order to get off the disfavored nation list,' Bier said.
Yahoo
29 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Carmakers Use Stealth Price Hikes to Cope With Trump's Tariffs
(Bloomberg) — Car buyers racing to get ahead of President Donald Trump's tariffs face an uncomfortable truth — the trade war is already boosting US auto prices, often in ways nearly invisible to consumers. Next Stop: Rancho Cucamonga! ICE Moves to DNA-Test Families Targeted for Deportation with New Contract Where Public Transit Systems Are Bouncing Back Around the World US Housing Agency Vulnerable to Fraud After DOGE Cuts, Documents Warn The Global Struggle to Build Safer Cars The sticker price on a particular make and model may not have changed, at least not yet. But automakers have been quietly cutting rebates and limiting cheap financing deals, adding hundreds of dollars to buyers' monthly payments even as the companies say they're holding the line on pricing. Several have boosted delivery charges — a fee everyone must pay when buying a new vehicle — by $40 to $400 dollars, according to automotive researcher Inc. Some dealers, meanwhile, have decided to charge more for the cars already on their lots, knowing it will cost more to replace them. These stealth increases could help automakers cope with Trump's 25% levies on imported vehicles without risking his wrath, particularly once cars that landed in American ports after the tariffs were imposed finally start reaching showrooms this month. They'd all like to avoid the social-media fury he unleashed on Walmart Inc. (WMT) after the retail giant said the trade war had forced it to raise prices. But the auto industry's subtle price hikes are already having an effect. The average sale price for a new car jumped 2.5% in April, the steepest monthly increase in five years, according to the Kelley Blue Book car buying guide. The average reached $48,699, almost a record. Incentives, which once knocked 10% off the price, fell to 6.7%. Zero-percent financing deals — a key come-on in this age of high interest rates — dropped in April to their lowest rate since 2019, according to researcher Cox Automotive. And at some point, car buyers may balk. 'On the consumer side, they're seeing several thousand dollars of actual-experience price increase, whereas the factory is saying, 'No man, we didn't raise prices at all,'' said Morris Smith III, a Ford (F) dealer in Kansas. 'Stealth is a good word for it.' While the steps have helped car companies avoid outright price hikes until now, those are coming. Ford Motor Co. told dealers it will raise sticker prices as much as $2,000 on three models it builds in Mexico — the Maverick pickup, the Bronco Sport and the electric Mustang Mach-E. Japan's Subaru Corp. (FUJHY) is boosting prices $1,000 to $2,000 to help offset tariff costs, according to people familiar with the matter. Hyundai Motor Co. (HYMLF) is considering a 1% increase to the suggested retail price of every model in its lineup, a hike of at least several hundred dollars, Bloomberg reported last week. The Korean company also is likely to jack up shipping charges and fees for options such as floor mats and roof rails, which could turn off some inflation-weary consumers. Other automakers are hiking prices on their new 2026 models coming this summer and fall, but attributing the increases to the model-year changeover rather than tariffs. 'With a new product, having a higher price is not 'raising price' in the game of semantics,' said John Murphy, an analyst with Bank of America Corp. (BAC), at an event in Detroit Wednesday. 'So they don't really enrage certain folks that might come down on them for raising price.' All of these changes — the sticker price increases, reduced incentives and higher fees — will become more visible to car shoppers in the coming weeks. Since the 25% levies went into effect on April 3, dealers have been selling from a shrinking stockpile of pre-tariff cars. (There's an exemption for cars that comply with the terms of the US, Mexico and Canada free trade agreement, which only face an import tax on their non-American content.) That process is nearly done, and by late June, dealers will face the new reality of lots filled with cars that cost more to bring into the country. 'There's nothing they can do to prevent this from having an impact,' said Sean Tucker, editor of Kelley Blue Book. 'There's not a single cliff, but the date they run out of those pre-tariff cars, that's when you're going to see the most dramatic change.' Sales may suffer as a result. A recent survey from found that 65% of new car buyers would walk away if monthly payments rose just 5% in a market where car prices are already near historic highs. An Edmunds survey released Thursday found three-quarters of car buyers said tariffs would be a factor in their purchasing decisions. Shoppers are already not getting the deals that were commonplace just months ago. Take the Ford F-150 pickup, America's top-selling vehicle. Earlier this year, an F-150 could be had with a 1.9% interest rate on a 6-year loan, Smith, the Kansas dealer, said. Then, Ford only offered that rate for certain, higher-priced trim levels of the truck. Now, 1.9% financing is offered only on three-year loans, which are rare.'The dealers I'm talking to have every expectation that in the next 90 days to six months, there will be pretty significant price increases across the board,' Smith said, 'assuming something doesn't happen with the tariffs.' Some dealers are preparing for that day of reckoning by making as much money off their pre-tariff inventory as they can, charging over the sticker price. 'Dealers set final prices, and they're dealing with the knowledge that for every car they sell, it's going to cost them more to replace it than it used to,' Tucker said. Automakers might not just raise prices on the cars they import. They may choose to increase the costs of their more expensive, US-made models so the full weight of the tariffs doesn't fall on some of the cheaper vehicles they make overseas. General Motors Co. (GM), for example, imports more than 400,000 cars each year from its factories in South Korea, including the $20,500 Chevrolet Trax. 'GM doesn't necessarily have to raise the price of the Chevy Trax by 25% in order to pay a 25% tariff on the Chevy Trax, because those buyers are the most price-sensitive,' Tucker said. 'So maybe instead, you bump up the price of the Silverado pickup in order to pay the tariff on the Trax. But GM isn't going to put that on a window sticker.' Automakers may also drop the most affordable trims of their vehicles. Stellantis NV (STLA (STLA) decided to pause making the entry-level version of its electric muscle car, the Charger Daytona R/T, because of tariff risks, the company confirmed in May. The R/T, built at an assembly plant in Windsor, Canada, currently starts at $59,595, while the more powerful Scat Pack trim starts at $73,190. Cox forecasts tariffs could raise the price on imported cars by 10% to 15%, further exacerbating an affordability crisis. But those increases aren't likely to come in big chunks, instead phasing in slowly and quietly so as not to scare off customers, said Erin Keating, Cox's senior director of economics and industry insights. Still, some potential buyers will walk away. Domestic sales could fall from 16 million in 2024 to 15.6 million this year, according to Cox. The outlook from consumer analysis company J.D. Power is even bleaker, with tariffs predicted to cut US auto sales by about 1.1 million vehicles annually, or roughly 8%. Automakers are scaling back production in anticipation. More than a half-million fewer cars will be built in North America this year than in 2024, according to researcher AutoForecast Solutions. 'By enacting tariffs on Canadian and Mexican parts and vehicles, it slows the whole workings of this North American machine making vehicles,' said Sam Fiorani, AutoForecast's vice president of global vehicle forecasting. 'The vehicles that are being built will cost more, raising the price of vehicles and lowering the demand for them. It's all interconnected.' —With assistance from Chester Dawson. Cavs Owner Dan Gilbert Wants to Donate His Billions—and Walk Again YouTube Is Swallowing TV Whole, and It's Coming for the Sitcom Millions of Americans Are Obsessed With This Japanese Barbecue Sauce Is Elon Musk's Political Capital Spent? Trump Considers Deporting Migrants to Rwanda After the UK Decides Not To ©2025 Bloomberg L.P. By subscribing, you are agreeing to Yahoo's Terms and Privacy Policy Sign in to access your portfolio
