Congress erupts over Trump's billion-dollar crypto deal
A $2 billion crypto deal involving President Trump's family and a foreign government is threatening to derail bipartisan stablecoin legislation that Congress has been working on for months.
Why it matters: Democrats see the potential for gob-smacking corruption in Trump's lucrative crypto projects, which they consider to be the clearest conflicts of interest in a sea of new business ventures launched by the president and his inner circle.
The Trump family's crypto dealings could now jeopardize legislation that the crypto industry has aggressively lobbied for as a way to gain legitimacy and legal clarity in the U.S.
What's happening: Senate Democrats unveiled a sweeping new proposal Tuesday to ban presidents, lawmakers and their families from issuing, endorsing or sponsoring crypto assets, Axios' Stephen Neukam scooped.
The new bill comes days after Senate Democrats suddenly voiced opposition to the GENIUS Act — landmark bipartisan legislation that would create the first-ever regulatory framework for stablecoins.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) and Rep. Sam Liccardo (D-Calif.) introduced bills targeting Trump's multibillion-dollar meme coin, which Murphy called "the single most corrupt act ever committed by a president."
Over in the House, Rep. Maxine Waters (D-Calif.) led a Democratic walkout of a joint hearing on crypto regulation, plunging the session into chaos in hopes of drawing new attention to Trump's alleged "corruption."
Between the lines: Democrats have long accused Trump and his family of profiting from the presidency. But on two particularly brazen crypto projects, Trumpworld may have flown too close to the sun.
The official website for Trump's meme coin invited its top 220 investors to an "intimate private dinner" with the president later this month, with a "VIP White House Tour" offered to the top 25 holders. References to the White House were later scrubbed from the website.
World Liberty Financial, the Trump family's crypto venture, announced that an Emirati state-backed venture fund would use World Liberty's new stablecoin to complete a $2 billion investment in crypto exchange Binance.
What they're saying: Trump has denied profiting from the presidency, telling NBC's "Meet the Press" that he started his crypto venture "long before the election."
"I haven't even looked," Trump claimed.
"Stablecoin legislation should be passed on a bipartisan basis. President Trump is dedicated to making America the crypto capital of the world and revolutionizing our digital financial technology. His assets are in a trust managed by his children, and there are no conflicts of interest," White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly told Axios.
Zoom out: Democrats erupted over news of the foreign deal, demanding an investigation by the Office of Government Ethics and warning of a "quid pro quo that could endanger national security."
At a closed-door meeting last week, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told his caucus to withhold support for the GENIUS Act so Democrats could force changes to the legislation.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) argued the stablecoin bill "will make it easier for the president and his family to line their own pockets," warning: "This is corruption and no senator should support it."
The bottom line: The crypto world was thrilled to see Trump take up the mantle of advocate-in-chief, especially after years of perceived hostility from the Biden administration.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Miami Herald
42 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Will Venezuela, Mexico benefit from Iran war oil price surge? Yes, but no
The conflict in Iran has triggered speculation that soaring global oil prices could deliver a windfall for Venezuela, Mexico, Colombia and other Latin American oil producers. But surprisingly, most oil experts say that's not likely to happen. Analysts from Goldman Sachs, J.P. Morgan and other financial institutions say oil prices could surge beyond $100 a barrel if Iran were to interrupt oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, which handles about 25% of world oil shipments. But most are quick to add that the impact of such disruption would probably be limited and short-lived. First, there is an oversupply of oil in world markets, partly because the global economy is growing more slowly than expected due to President Trump's tariff wars. Five days after Israel's attack on Iran's nuclear facilities, world oil prices remained below their 2024 average of $80 per barrel, according to a Deutsche Bank analysis. Second, Iran is a relatively small oil exporter, producing about 3% of the world's output. And due to U.S. and European sanctions, Iran sells 90% of its oil to a single country — China. If Iran's oil production stopped, it would affect mainly China, although it currently has high oil inventories. Third, in the most catastrophic scenario — if Iran were to block the Strait of Hormuz in retaliation for U.S. or European actions in support of Israel — Washington would most likely intervene militarily to reopen that vital trade passage. And China, Russia, Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states — rhetoric aside — would probably welcome a reopening of their oil supply lanes, analysts say. Francisco J. Monaldi, director of the Latin America Energy Program at Rice University's Baker Institute, told me that in the worst-case scenario — an extended disruption of the Strait of Hormuz that dramatically drives up world oil prices — there would be a 'net gain' for Latin American oil exporters. 'Guyana, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador and even Brazil and Argentina, to some extent, would see a positive impact on their balance sheets,' Monaldi told me. 'Mexico has become a net oil importer, but higher prices would also benefit Pemex's [state-owned oil company's] revenues.' He added, 'Of course, such gains could be somewhat offset by negative secondary effects, like a global recession. But the net outcome for these countries would be an important surge in their revenues and exports.' However, when I asked Monaldi about the chances of a prolonged disruption of oil shipments through the Strait of Hormuz, he said that it's unlikely to happen. The U.S. Navy would re-open that shipping lane immediately, and oil prices would soon return to normal, he added. 'We could see a temporary spike in oil prices, but there shouldn't be a long-term impact,' he concluded. By the same token, oil importers such as Chile, Cuba and other Caribbean countries would have to spend more money in the short run to make their purchases, but their pain may not last too long. Interestingly, the World Bank, which earlier this month issued a report forecasting a major slowdown in the U.S. and global economy — partly due to Trump's tariffs — is not anticipating changes in its economic projection as a result of the Iran war. Valerie Mercer-Backman, the lead author of the Latin American section of the World Bank's forecast, told me that despite the latest Iran conflict, the general trend was toward a 'slight decline' in world oil prices. The war may produce a temporary spike, 'but we don't see that the latest geopolitical events will have a major impact on our forecast,' she said. This brings me back to the conclusion that the Venezuelan dictatorship — perhaps Latin America's biggest potential winner of a global oil price hike — along with Colombia and Mexico may get, at best, a brief respite if the Iran war disrupts world oil shipping lanes. But it's not likely to be enough to help Venezuela emerge from its severe economic crisis or to solve the current troubles of Mexico and Colombia. Don't miss the 'Oppenheimer Presenta' TV show on Sundays at 9 pm E.T. on CNN en Español. Blog:
The Hill
44 minutes ago
- The Hill
Abandoning our Afghan allies is a moral and strategic mistake
It is a bad time for thousands of Afghans who risked their lives helping the U.S. over the past two decades. On June 2, it was announced that the office that helps with relocation of Afghans who helped America will close on July 1. Last month, the Department of Homeland Security formally ended Temporary Protected Status for roughly 10,000 Afghans who fled their country after the Taliban's return to power in 2021. Under the new directive, Afghan nationals currently residing in the U.S. under Temporary Protected Status have just under six weeks to leave, setting a deadline of July 14. Most of these Afghans are waiting for the backlog to clear to get the Special Immigrant Visa that was promised to them because of the help they provided the U.S. since its 2001 invasion. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem stated that 'Afghanistan has had an improved security situation, and its stabilizing economy no longer prevent them from returning to their home country.' Yet, only days later, the State Department included Afghan citizens on a new 'travel ban' list due to deteriorating security situation and threat of terrorism from that country, contradicting what Noem and her department had claimed. Anyone paying attention to Afghanistan since the Taliban's return knows that it is not safe. The country has collapsed into an economic and humanitarian crisis. Al Qaeda has reestablished its position, operating training camps and safe houses across the country. According to a recent U.N. report, Afghanistan is now a 'permissive environment' for al Qaeda consolidation. Meanwhile, the Afghan branch of the so-called Islamic State has never been stronger. Girls cannot attend school beyond grade six. Women cannot work or even leave their homes without permission from a male relative. Ethnic and religious minorities continue to face persecution. The Taliban are hunting down Afghans who worked with the U.S. and its allies — often with deadly consequences. The claim that Afghanistan is now 'safe' is false. This issue is tricky for the Trump administration. In February 2020, President Trump reached a deal with the Taliban that planted the seed for the withdrawal of U.S. forces by May 2021. That agreement set in motion the Taliban's return to power. When President Joe Biden took office in 2021, he had the chance to cancel the deal, but he did not. By July, most U.S. and allied troops had left. On August 15, the Taliban seized Kabul. By Sept. 11, 2021 — the 20th anniversary of 9/11 — they controlled more of Afghanistan than they had on that tragic day in 2001. Both presidents share the blame. In the chaotic withdrawal, the U.S. left behind an estimated $7 billion in military equipment — most of which is now in Taliban hands or circulating on the regional black market. But the greater cost has been moral: the abandonment of tens of thousands of Afghans who served alongside American forces. Many of these men and women risked their lives for U.S. forces as interpreters, engineers, medics and contractors. For them, the Taliban's return is not just a change of government — it's a death sentence. Given the chaos the Biden administration allowed at America's southern border, it might be tempting to fold the Afghan resettlement issue into the broader immigration debate. But that approach would be both lazy and strategically short-sighted. Afghanistan and the broader regions of Central and South Asia will remain central to U.S. counterterrorism and foreign policy for the foreseeable future, and pretending otherwise is naive. There are four clear strategic reasons why helping Afghans who aided the U.S. is not only just but smart. First, honoring our commitment to Afghan partners sends a powerful message to future allies. In every modern conflict, American forces have relied on local partners for on-the-ground support. That pattern will almost certainly continue. If local partners believe the U.S. won't protect them when the fight is over, they will be far less willing to take that risk, which would weaken America's global reach and credibility. Second, Afghans already in the U.S. represent a critical talent pool. Many are trained linguists and cultural experts. During the two-decade U.S. mission in Afghanistan, they filled roles that no one else could. Yet in November 2023, Defense Language Institute ceased instruction in Pashto, one of Afghanistan's national languages. Should the U.S. again need Pashto speakers or regional experts, the Afghan American community will be indispensable. Third, these Afghans could help shape a post-Taliban Afghanistan. After 2001, the Afghan American diaspora was key to rebuilding the country. The current Taliban regime is fractured and unlikely to maintain control indefinitely. Offering refuge to educated, professionally trained Afghans bolsters U.S. capacity now and supports future stabilization efforts. Fourth, Afghan immigrants provide indirect humanitarian aid via remittances. In 2019, remittances made up 4.4 percent of Afghanistan's GDP. Since late 2021, the U.S. Treasury has allowed Afghans here to send money home despite sanctions. These remittances reduce the burden on American taxpayers and support Afghan families in crisis. Beyond these strategic benefits, there is the moral argument. Doing right by those who stood with America is a matter of national honor. The way a nation treats its allies — especially when they are vulnerable — says everything about its values. These Afghans risked everything for us. Abandoning them now is a betrayal. Trump began the withdrawal process. Biden finished it. Now, Trump has a rare second chance to do the right thing. His administration can correct a serious moral and strategic failure by reversing the decision to revoke Temporary Protected Status for Afghan nationals and instead prioritizing their protection. Rather than forcing them to leave, the U.S. should expedite visa processing and safe relocation for Afghan allies. This isn't just about compassion — it's about keeping our word, protecting our interests and preparing for the future. Luke Coffey is a senior fellow at Hudson Institute.
CNN
44 minutes ago
- CNN
Social Security won't be able to pay full benefits in 2034 if Congress doesn't act
Social Security will not be able to fully pay monthly benefits to tens of millions of retirees and people with disabilities in 2034 if lawmakers don't act to address the program's pending shortfall, according to an annual report released Wednesday by Social Security's trustees. The combined Social Security trust funds – which help support payments to the elderly, survivors and people with disabilities – are expected to be exhausted in 2034, one year earlier than previously forecast, according to the trustees' annual report. At that time, payroll tax revenue and other income sources will only be able to cover 81% of benefits owed. The deterioration in the forecast stems from several factors, including a law passed by Congress last year that increased benefits for certain workers and the trustees' assumption that it will take longer for the nation's fertility rate to recover from historically low levels. Average earnings are expected to grow somewhat more slowly over the coming decade, according to the report. Medicare's fiscal outlook also worsened. Its hospital insurance trust fund, known as Medicare Part A, is expected to be able to cover scheduled inpatient hospital benefits until 2033, compared to 2036 in last year's report from the program's trustees. At that time, Medicare will only be able to pay 89% of total scheduled Part A benefits, which also cover hospice care, short-term skilled nursing facility services and home health services following hospitalizations. The program's trustees project that Medicare's trust fund will be drained sooner because of increased medical spending in 2024, which also raised the forecast for future expenditures. Plus, the trustees raised their assumed growth level of inpatient and hospice services in coming years.
