Latest news with #Trump-associated
Yahoo
07-05-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Trump's 'corrupt' billion-dollar crypto deal sparks outrage in Congress
The Trump family's latest cryptocurrency gambit may have flown too close to the sun. Now, the bipartisan GENIUS Act, one of the most comprehensive and pivotal attempts to regulate the stablecoin industry, is at stake. World Liberty Financial, run by President Donald Trump's sons Don Jr. and Eric, is at the center of the storm. According to the crypto company's website, 60% of it is owned by a Trump business entity, and the venture's close ties to the president are clear. And a recent deal the Trump-associated business made has Capitol Hill up in arms. On May 1, an Abu Dhabi–backed investment fund announced it would use the Trump family's stablecoin to facilitate a $2 billion investment in the crypto exchange Binance. Critics in Congress are accusing the president and his family of pushing a self-serving crypto scheme that could undercut the very legislation they claim to support. Democratic Rep. Maxine Waters staged a walkout during a House crypto hearing on Tuesday, citing what she called 'the corruption of the president and his ownership of crypto and his oversight of all the agencies.' But the Emirati deal isn't the only stir the Trump-backed crypto venture has caused. In late April, Fight Fight Fight, a company affiliated with Trump, promoted the $TRUMP meme coin by offering an 'intimate private dinner' to its top 220 investors with the president at his golf club in northern Virginia and a (later-removed) 'VIP White House Tour' to the top 25 holders — and the coin's value skyrocketed by as much as 80%. Trump-linked crypto ventures have generated over $300 million in trading fees from meme coin and token sales since January. Democrats sour on the GENIUS Act Sen. Richard Blumenthal, who is leading an investigation into Trump's crypto ties, said recently that 'Donald Trump is selling cryptocurrency like snake oil in the Wild West, and he's put a for sale sign on the White House for his meme coin.' Sen. Chris Murphy, who introduced bills targeting Trump's multibillion-dollar meme coin, called that venture 'the single most corrupt act ever committed by a president.' Before last week, the GENIUS Act had been widely supported — a piece of legislation aimed at bringing federal oversight and consumer protection to the booming and often volatile stablecoin industry. Introduced last fall by Sens. Kirsten Gillibrand and Cynthia Lummis, it seeks to establish strict requirements for reserve backing, transparency, and licensure for any issuer of U.S. dollar–pegged stablecoins. The legislation was seen by many as a long-overdue answer to a regulatory gray zone that has allowed stablecoin projects to balloon with little federal oversight. The Senate is set to begin considering the GENIUS Act on Thursday. But it's once-easy passing has become much more complicated — it lost at least nine Democratic supporters last week. Sen. Elizabeth Warren warned that the GENIUS Act 'will make it easier for the president and his family to line their own pockets.' She added: 'This is corruption, and no senator should support it.' At a closed-door meeting last week, Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer urged his party to hold firm on withholding support for the legislation unless tighter anti-corruption measures are included. GOP also hesitant on the bill It's not just Democrats who have expressed wariness over the president's crypto dealings, although they've been the most vocal about their outrage. Lawmakers on both sides of the aisle have suggested they might not back the legislation — albeit Republicans haven't expressly said that would be because of Trump's crypto ties. Republican Sen. Rand Paul is a likely no, he said on Tuesday, because the regulations it would impose could harm the crypto industry down the road. And Sen. Josh Hawley said he's 'not a fan of Big Tech issuing their own stablecoin,' which could be allowed under the GENIUS Act. Sen. John Kennedy is also wary about voting for the bill — especially as Democrats work to change phrasing and key aspects related to the president. He said, 'They're making deals all over hell and half of Georgia. Until I understand what those deals are and how the bill has changed, I'm not on board.' Trump, who has branded himself as 'the first Crypto president,' has denied any wrongdoing. In an interview with NBC's (CMCSA) Meet the Press, he claimed his crypto ventures predated his 2024 campaign and that he hasn't 'even looked' at how it's doing. The White House, through spokesperson Anna Kelly, told Axios, 'President Trump is dedicated to making America the crypto capital of the world and revolutionizing our digital financial technology,' adding that Trump's crypto assets are 'in a trust managed by his children, and there are no conflicts of interest.' A New York Times report, however, found that World Liberty Financial has 'erased centuries-old presidential norms, eviscerating the boundary between private enterprise and government policy in a manner without precedent in modern American history.' Democratic Sens. Jeff Merkley and Warren plan to introduce legislation that would ban the president, vice president, lawmakers, and their families from launching or profiting from crypto assets while in office — a direct response to Trump's business activity. Gillibrand and other Democratic senators are also co-sponsors of the End Crypto Corruption Act. Merkley told USA Today, 'This is not a situation where somebody is passing a few thousand dollars under the table as a bribe. This is a situation where – on the table, in full view of the public – the president is selling access to his office. ... If we're going to have any credibility in working for the people, we have to end this vastly corrupt enterprise the president's engaged in.' For the latest news, Facebook, Twitter and Instagram.
The Independent
05-05-2025
- Business
- The Independent
Trump's sons promote real estate and crypto deals across world that will benefit the president
Donald Trump's sons Eric and Donald Trump Jr have embarked on a worldwide tour in recent weeks with stops across Europe and the Middle East promoting Trump-associated business ventures that could directly benefit the president. The deals include a $1 billion luxury hotel in Dubai, a golf course and villa complex in Qatar, a hotel in Serbia, and a $2 billion investment from an Abu Dhabi-backed venture capital fund using a currency offered by the Trump family's crypto firm World Liberty Financial. On the home front last month, Donald Trump Jr announced the launch of a $500,000-per-membership exclusive club in Washington, D.C., called, cheekily, the Executive Branch, the name for the category of federal offices that include the presidency. Taken together, the deals will generate millions for the Trump family and its companies, with some of those benefits flowing directly to the president, according to an analysis from The New York Times. The White House insists that the president's assets are held in a trust managed by his children, so the deals don't prevent a conflict of interest. 'It's laughable that the left-wing media thinks that I should lock myself in a padded room while my father is president and cease doing what I've been doing for over 25 years to earn a living and provide for my five children,' Donald Trump Jr. said in a statement to The Times. Others have argued the Trump administration is conducting an unsavory mix of business and politics, a criticism that hit the family during the first Trump term, as lobbyists and foreign officials filled the halls of the now-sold Trump hotel in Washington. Responding to reports that a trucking firm bought millions in Trump crypto coins to lobby on tariff policy, Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, called the administration 'the most corrupt White House in American history' in an X post on Monday. 'It's called bribery,' he said. 'And apparently it used to be illegal.' This week, Trump is attending a $1.5-million-per-plate crypto dinner hosted by a pro-Trump super PAC, as well as a dinner later in the week for top investors in the Trump crypto meme coin.
Yahoo
15-03-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
Why Trump businesses' lawsuit against Capital One bank is so ridiculous
Earlier this month, a collection of people and entities affiliated with President Donald Trump — specifically, the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, DJT Holdings LLC, DJT Holdings Managing Member LLC, DTTM Operations LLC and Eric Trump — sued Capital One bank for having 'unjustifiably' closed numerous Trump-associated bank accounts in the aftermath of the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection at the U.S. Capitol. The lawsuit pleads that 'de-banking' — closing depositors' bank accounts — was originally meant to stop fraudsters from having access to banking facilities but it morphed into a way to punish depositors for their political beliefs. The lawsuit explains that completely legal gun and ammunition dealers or payday lenders often found themselves de-banked by unelected bureaucrats who disagreed with the businesses' political beliefs. The plaintiffs claim to have been damaged by this type of de-banking when Capital One closed Trump accounts because of the Trumps' 'political views.' The Trumps seek damages under an assortment of state consumer protection laws. Just how many ways is this lawsuit silly? Let me count them. As a purely legal matter, the Trumps don't appear to have suffered any recoverable money damages. According to the lawsuit, Capital One closed the Trump bank accounts. Presumably, the bank returned the Trumps' money to them — the lawsuit doesn't say otherwise, and it's inconceivable the bank would have stolen the Trumps' money. (A representative for Capital One declined to comment for this article.) It's true that individual depositors with small accounts — such as gun shops — might have trouble setting up new banking relationships after they were 'de-banked,' but a large real estate business, such as the Trump Organization, would have had no trouble on that score. So while we don't know for certain, the Trumps' situation was presumably this: Capital One closed the Trumps' bank accounts, Capital One returned the Trumps' money, the Trumps promptly found a new bank, and the Trumps, uninjured, went on with their business. A fundamental element of any lawsuit is that a plaintiff must have suffered damages. Here, except perhaps for the inconvenience of changing bankers, the Trumps suffered none. Where's the case? But that's just the legal flaw in this lawsuit. Think for a moment about the practical flaws. Is any jury going to believe that Capital One stopped its banking relationship in the months after Jan. 6 because of Donald Trump's political beliefs? Did the bank really think, 'Donald Trump doesn't like affirmative action and he opposes DEI, so we should close his accounts'? Or is it far more likely — and in fact almost certainly true, and sure to be believed by a jury in a heartbeat — that Capital One closed the Trumps' bank accounts because it didn't care to be associated with a person who appeared to have incited an insurrection and then stood by silently for three hours as rioters ransacked the Capitol? Just about everyone in America — all Democrats, and even some Republicans — knew that Trump was 'practically and morally responsible for provoking the events' of Jan. 6, as then-GOP Senate leader Mitch McConnell put it at the time. This wasn't a matter of politics; it was a matter of morality. Capital One didn't close the Trumps' bank accounts because of Trump's political views. Capital One has denied that it closed the bank accounts for political reasons, but it wouldn't be unreasonable to surmise that the bank didn't care to be associated with anyone — Democratic, Republican or independent — who tried to interfere with the counting of votes in a presidential election. Handling financial transactions for Trump both would have been immoral and would have posed a reputational risk for the bank. Ending that relationship wasn't improper; it was sane. Although many Americans seem to have forgiven Trump's gross misconduct over the four years since the Jan. 6 riot, that misconduct could fully justify Capital One's closing of the bank accounts. But the practical flaws in the Trumps' lawsuit don't stop there. In any lawsuit, the parties are permitted to take discovery — gather information — from each other. Capital One will thus have the right to request documents and take testimony from Donald Trump and others about Trump's conduct on Jan. 6. As the House Jan. 6 committee proceedings made clear, there is nothing about Trump's conduct in early January 2021 that is praiseworthy; there is much that should be condemned. Does Trump really want to relive, and again place in the public eye, the events of one of the most notorious days in his life? There are many reasons for the Trumps to abandon this lawsuit. There is only one reason for them to pursue it: to get a financial settlement. There's no legal reason for Capital One to settle the Trumps' newest lawsuit. The lawsuit is both defensible and embarrassing for Trump to pursue. But there are surely practical reasons — avoiding the wrath the federal government could inflict on a bank — for Capital One to cough up some dough to make this go away. Is that justice? Not by a long shot. But does it appear to be a recurring way for Trump to profit while he has the government on his side? Bank on it. This article was originally published on
