The US President raised eyebrows once again after announcing that top holders of his TRUMP meme coin would have the chance to have an exclusive dinner with him or a VIP tour of the White House. The decision to use public office for private gain drew scrutiny over whether the President was committing Constitutional violations.
Former George W. Bush Ethics Lawyer Richard Painter explained that Trump did not violate the US Constitution but could be sued for fraud if he fails to fulfill his promises by the May deadline.
If President Trump’s involvement in crypto ventures raised ethical concerns before, they’ve now turned legal following his recent announcement regarding the trading of his meme coin.
Last week, Trump announced a contest in which the top 220 holders of TRUMP would be invited to an exclusive gala dinner to meet the President, while the top 25 holders would also get a VIP tour of the White House.
The public has until May 12 to accumulate tokens beyond the 220 threshold, while the dinner is set to take place on May 22. The announcement immediately raised criticism over corruption and market manipulation.
A recent report, co-authored by Painter, indicates that as of mid-March, President Trump’s cryptocurrency holdings, including TRUMP and WLFI, were valued at $2.9 billion, constituting about 37% of his total wealth. The launch of the USD1 stablecoin by World Liberty Financial would drive further growth in the value of these assets.
Though visibly unethical, Trump’s actions are not legally liable.
Despite public and legislative criticism and scrutiny from bodies like the Senate Banking Committee, President Trump has avoided legal challenges so far. Though riddled with ethical questions, his crypto ventures have successfully skirted legal and constitutional breaches of trust.
Under the US Constitution, the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses are anti-corruption provisions designed to ensure the integrity and independence of individuals holding positions of public trust within the government.
They aim to prevent external and internal influences from potentially compromising the judgment and loyalty of government officials. However, these clauses primarily address gifts or benefits from foreign governments or the US government itself.