Trump's crypto, the Qatar jet ― will supporters finally admit something's wrong?
In February, I wrote a column for the Free Press wondering at the 'all-inness' of many of President Donald Trump's supporters. For them, it seems the president can do no wrong, a kind of blanket certainty I've never felt toward any politician in my lifetime. (In fact, that's too limiting; point to any leader in American history and rest assured I've got a gripe or two.)
The reactions to my column were fairly revealing. I'm happy to say a large majority of those who got in touch found the column to be on the money. Even some Trump voters thanked me for giving them something to think about.
There were also those who took (occasionally profane) issue with my thoughts. They, of course, unwittingly helped make my point. I chose two things that troubled me about Trump 2.0, and for them that was two things too many.
At the heart of my column was a challenge to the president's ardent supporters to call out bad behavior when they see it.
Friends, such a moment has arrived.
More from Freep Opinion: Devin Scillian: I'm mystified by the blind allegiance of Trump supporters
In that original dispatch, I described the Emoluments Clause ― the section of the Constitution that prohibits presidents from profiting from the office ― as 'a rancid, rotting carcass in the road.'
I was speaking of the president's cryptocurrency money play ― and by the way, not a single one of those who wrote to disparage my column even tried to defend the Trump meme coin.
The crypto scheme has only grown in its ugliness. Trump and his family have raked in hundreds of millions of dollars — we'll probably never know from whom — and because surely there was a little more money to be wrung from this morass, the president launched a pay-for-play competition to offer a private dinner with him to the top 220 holders of the coin. ('You can't win if you don't play!')
It's worth noting the value of the coin had fallen almost 90% from its high until Trump announced the dinner competition. Voila! The price jumped 58% almost immediately.
It's also worth noting that many Americans have lost collective billions trying to jump in and play this shell game that so defines the crypto world.
But ahh, the beauty of this thing; while the coin value can bounce around like a neutron, the transaction fees remain a certainty. (Fans of the 1983 film 'Trading Places' may recall this simple explanation of Wall Street largesse: 'No matter whether our clients make money or lose money, Duke and Duke get the commissions.')
The president's sons, meanwhile, are traveling all over the world pushing something called World Liberty Financial. That's the Trump family's crypto exchange launched just before the 2024 election. From Bitcoin mining to releasing meme coins like $TRUMP and $MELANIA, a new study reckons crypto has pushed a breathtaking $2.9 billion into the Trump family vaults. (It adds up quickly when an Abu Dhabi-backed firm announces it's buying $2 billion worth of World Liberty Financial goods.) It leaves us with the nation's chief policymaker on cryptocurrency standing right at the corner of Conflict and Interest.
More from Freep Opinion: Ghost of Brooks Patterson and specter of Donald Trump collide in Oakland County
All of this makes it all the more stunning when White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt takes to the podium and somehow manages to say, 'I think it's frankly ridiculous that anyone in this room would even suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit. He left a life of luxury and a life of running a very successful real estate empire for public service ... This is a president who has actually lost money for being president of the United States.'
Ms. Leavitt, a lot of people lose money in crypto, but the president isn't one of them.
That was going to be the sum total of this column.
But then ...
I'm not actually sure what happens when 'a rancid, rotting carcass' decays even further.
But whatever is left of the emoluments clause in the Constitution is being slapped in the mouth by the offer of Qatar to give the president a luxury jet to be used as Air Force One.
Now, I'll set aside the seeming impossibility of this offer. (That plane would have to be torn apart down to the bolts for it to be scrutinized and likely overhauled for security measures.) But a $400 million gift (a term the president has used himself, helpfully cross-referencing it for legal scholars) clearly flies in the face of the straightforward guardrails laid down by the Founding Fathers.
The emoluments clause says that a president cannot accept money or gifts from foreign governments without the consent of Congress. (Congress is, by the way, still a functioning government body. I Googled it to check.)
Trump said you'd have to be 'stupid' to turn down the Qatari offer. But I tend to think James Madison and company were onto something.
The irony here is that big piles of money and lavish gifts passing back and forth with a wink and a nod are the hallmarks of the swamp that so riled and motivated Trump voters a decade ago.
I'm not arguing about tariffs, immigration, inflation, or anything that can be considered a matter of policy debate. I'm talking about deep, dark money, dark money being passed in broad daylight. So, as I did in my first column, I'm wondering aloud if the president's supporters can be the ones to tell the commander-in-chief he's wrong.
Some card players have what is known as 'a tell.' I detected a pretty strong tell from the president when he announced that he had reached a trade agreement with the United Kingdom. As he outlined the importance of the deal, he noted, 'We have a lot of investment over there,' and then started talking about golf courses and hotels.
It took me a moment to realize he wasn't talking about the United States. In the middle of praising an American trade pact, the president's mind was clearly on Trump Inc.
Are you good with that?
Devin Scillian is a veteran journalist, author and former Detroit news anchor, serving Detroit viewers for 30 years on WDIV-TV (Channel 4). Submit a letter to the editor at freep.com/letters, and we may publish it online and in print.
Like what you're reading? Please consider supporting local journalism and getting unlimited digital access with a Detroit Free Press subscription. We depend on readers like you.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Qatari 747, Trump meme coin: The emoluments clause is dead | Opinion
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The president's ex-adviser said the 79-year-old looked downright exhausted during his meeting with the Russian leader.
President Donald Trump's former national security adviser thought he looked 'tired' at his Alaska summit, which did him no favors standing opposite Russian President Vladimir Putin. John Bolton said on CNN that Putin 'clearly won' the high-profile encounter on Friday given that he escaped without agreeing to a ceasefire with Ukraine and without additional sanctions on Russia. 'Trump didn't come away with anything except more meetings,' Bolton said. 'Putin has, I think, gone a long way to reestablishing the relationship, which I've always believed was his key goal. He has escaped sanctions. He's not facing a ceasefire. The next meeting is not set.'
Yahoo
2 minutes ago
- Yahoo
National Guard to carry weapons in D.C. as West Virginia sends troops at Trump's request
National Guard troops mobilized in Washington, D.C., are preparing to carry weapons in the coming days, according to a new report. Some troops were told to expect an order to start carrying weapons late Friday, though no official order had come as of Saturday morning, The Wall Street Journal reports. This comes after the U.S. Army said in a statement that 'weapons are available if needed but will remain in the armory.' President Donald Trump mobilized about 800 members of the D.C. National Guard in the nation's capital this week. As of Thursday, about 200 troops were on the streets of D.C., the Defense Department said. Now, West Virginia Governor Patrick Morrisey is set to send additional National Guard troops to Washington, D.C., at the request of the Trump administration The West Virginia National Guard will provide 'mission-essential equipment, specialized training, and approximately 300-400 skilled personnel as directed,' according to a Saturday statement from Morrisey's office. The mission, which will be 'funded at the federal level,' is a show of 'commitment to public safety and regional cooperation,' the statement adds. More states could follow in West Virginia's footsteps. A White House official told The Independent that the National Guard's role has not changed, and 'additional National Guard troops will be called in to Washington DC.' 'The National Guard will protect federal assets, create a safe environment for law enforcement officials to carry out their duties when required, and provide a visible presence to deter crime,' the official said. D.C. National Guard spokesman Capt. Tinashe Machona told The Washington Post that other states want to participate in the mission, but he couldn't provide a specific number. The Independent has contacted the Washington, D.C. National Guard for comment. Trump claimed he mobilized troops and federalized D.C. police in response to 'out of control' crime that was getting worse. However, data shows that violent crime in Washington, D.C. has been decreasing since 2023. Violent crime in D.C. even hit its lowest point in more than 30 years in 2024, according to the Justice Department. D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser called Trump's takeover of the police force an 'authoritarian push' on Tuesday. Trump threatened a D.C. takeover earlier this month after Edward Coristine, a former Department of Government Efficiency staffer, was assaulted in an attempted carjacking. Coristine, 19, is better known by his online nickname 'Big Balls.' 'I have to say that somebody from DOGE was very badly hurt…a young man who was beat up by a bunch of thugs in DC, and either they're gonna straighten their act out in the terms of government and in terms of protection or we're gonna have to federalize and run it the way it's supposed to be run,' Trump said on August 5. Trump also said he was placing the D.C. police under federal control this week. The Justice Department then attempted to name DEA Administrator Terry Cole as the Metropolitan Police Department's 'emergency police commissioner.' D.C. sued in a response, challenging the administration's appointment of Cole and its attempts to assert control over the department. Following an emergency court hearing on Friday, the Trump administration walked back its order, allowing the D.C. government and current police chief Pamela Smith to retain control over the department. Attorney General Pam Bondi instead named Cole her 'designee.' 'I have just issued a new directive to Mayor Bowser requiring MPD to provide the services found necessary by my designee, @DEAHQ Administrator Terry Cole, to comply fully and completely with federal immigration law and authorities, regardless of any policies MPD might otherwise have,' Bondi wrote on X. 'Unfortunately, the DC Attorney General continues to oppose our efforts to improve public safety in Washington, DC,' she added. D.C. Attorney General Brian Schwalb celebrated the judge's decision on Friday. 'The outcome of today's hearing is a win for Home Rule and upholds the District's right to operate its own local police force,' he wrote on X. 'The Court recognized that it was clearly unlawful for the Administration to try to seize control of the Metropolitan Police Department. Chief Smith and @MayorBowser rightfully remain in command of MPD.'
Los Angeles Times
4 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
It's time to save the whales again
Diving in a kelp forest in Monterey Bay recently, I watched a tubby 200-pound harbor seal follow a fellow diver, nibbling on his flippers. The diver, a graduate student, was using sponges to collect DNA samples from the ocean floor. Curious seals, he told me, can be a nuisance. When he bags his sponges and places them in his collection net, they sometimes bite into them, puncturing the bags and spoiling his samples. Under the Marine Mammal Protection Act, coming closer than 50 yards to seals and dolphins is considered harassment, but they're free to harass you, which seems only fair given the centuries of deadly whaling and seal hunting that preceded a generational shift in how we view the world around us. The shift took hold in 1969, the year a massive oil spill coated the Santa Barbara coastline and the Cuyahoga River, in Cleveland, caught fire. Those two events helped spark the first Earth Day, in 1970, and the shutdown of America's last whaling station in 1971. Protecting the environment from pollution and from loss of wilderness and wildlife quickly moved from a protest issue to a societal ethic as America's keystone environmental legislation was passed at around the same time, written by a Democratic Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, Richard Nixon. Those laws include the National Environmental Policy Act (1969) , the Clean Air Act (1970), the Clean Water Act (1972) and the Marine Mammal Protection Act (1972), which goes further than the Endangered Species Act (1973) in protecting all marine mammals, not just threatened ones, from harassment, killing or capture by U.S. citizens in U.S. waters and on the high seas. All these 'green' laws and more are under attack by the Trump administration, its congressional minions and longtime corporate opponents of environmental protections, including the oil and gas industry. Republicans' disingenuous argument for weakening the Endangered Species Act and the Marine Mammal Protection Act is that the legislation has worked so well in rebuilding wildlife populations that it's time to loosen regulations for a better balance between nature and human enterprise. When it comes to marine mammal populations, that premise is wrong. On July 22, at a House Natural Resources subcommittee meeting, Republican Rep. Nick Begich of Alaska introduced draft legislation that would scale back the Marine Mammal Protection Act. Among other things, his proposal would limit the ability of the federal government to take action against 'incidental take,' the killing of whales, dolphins and seals by sonic blasts from oil exploration, ship and boat strikes or by drowning as accidental catch (also known as bycatch) in fishing gear. Begich complained that marine mammal protections interfere with 'essential projects like energy development, port construction, and even fishery operations.' Rep. Jared Huffman (D-San Rafael), the ranking member on the House Resources Committee, calls the legislation a 'death sentence' for marine mammals. It's true that the marine mammal law has been a success in many ways. Since its passage, no marine mammal has gone extinct and some species have recovered dramatically. The number of northern elephant seals migrating to California beaches to mate and molt grew from 10,000 in 1972 to about 125,000 today. There were an estimated 11,000 gray whales off the West Coast when the Marine Mammal Protection Act became law; by 2016, the population peaked at 27,000. But not all species have thrived. Historically there were about 20,000 North Atlantic right whales off the Eastern Seaboard. They got their name because they were the 'right' whales to harpoon — their bodies floated for easy recovery after they were killed. In 1972 they were down to an estimated 350 individuals. After more than half a century of federal legal protection, the population is estimated at 370. They continue to suffer high mortality rates from ship strikes, entanglement in fishing gear and other causes, including noise pollution and greater difficulty finding prey in warming seas. Off Florida, a combination of boat strikes and algal pollution threaten some 8,000-10,000 manatees. The population's recovery (from about 1,000 in 1979) has been significant enough to move them off the endangered species list in 2017, but since the beginning of this year alone, nearly 500 have died. Scientists would like to see them relisted, but at least they're still covered by the Marine Mammal Protection Act. A 2022 study in the Gulf of Mexico found that in areas affected by the BP Deepwater Horizon oil spill 12 years earlier, the dolphin population had declined 45% and that it might take 35 years to recover. In the Arctic Ocean off Alaska, loss of sea ice is threatening polar bears (they're considered marine mammals), bowhead and beluga whales, walruses, ringed seals and harp seals. On the West Coast the number of gray whales — a Marine Mammal Act success story and now a cautionary tale — has crashed by more than half in the last decade to fewer than 13,000, according to a recent report by National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA, the nation's lead ocean agency, is an endangered species in its own right in the Trump era). Declining prey, including tiny shrimp-like amphipods, in the whales' summer feeding grounds in the Arctic probably caused by warming water are thought to be a major contributor to their starvation deaths and reduced birth rates. The whale's diving numbers are just one signal that climate change alone makes maintaining the Marine Mammal Act urgent. Widespread marine heat waves linked to a warming ocean are contributing to the loss of kelp forests that sea otters and other marine mammals depend on. Algal blooms off California, and for the first time ever, Alaska, supercharged by warmer waters and nutrient pollution, are leading to the deaths of thousands of dolphins and sea lions. What the Trump administration and its antiregulation, anti-environmental-protection supporters fail to recognize is that the loss of marine mammals is an indicator for the declining health of our oceans and the natural world we depend on and are a part of. This time, saving the whales will be about saving ourselves. David Helvarg is executive director of Blue Frontier, an ocean policy group. His next book, 'Forest of the Sea: The Remarkable Life and Imperiled Future of Kelp,' is scheduled to be published in 2026.
