Raskin investigating Trump meme coin event
Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.) has opened an investigation into President Trump's memo coin dinner that took place last week and asked the White House to disclose the names of the attendees, warning that foreign governments could be attempting to curry favor with the president through cryptocurrency acquisitions.
'I write today to demand that you release the names of all the attendees at this dinner and provide information about the source of the money they each used to buy $TRUMP coins, so that we can prevent illegal foreign government emoluments from being pocketed without congressional consent,' Raskin, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, wrote in a late Wednesday letter to Trump.
Raskin, who has often criticized the president's foreign deals, argued that the disclosure of the names of the individuals who attended the May 22 private dinner at Trump's golf club will inform the public about 'who is putting tens of millions of dollars into our President's pocket so we can start to figure out what—beyond virtually worthless memecoins—they are getting in exchange for all this money.'
The White House did not immediately respond to The Hill's request for comment.
The letter comes as Vice President Vance addressed the crypto industry at the Bitcoin conference in Las Vegas this week, telling attendees to bolster their involvement in politics. The sector's heavy hitters spent north of $200 million to back crypto-aligned candidates during the 2024 election cycle.
'Take the momentum of your political involvement in 2024 and carry it forward to 2026 and beyond. Don't ignore politics, because I guarantee you, my friends, politics is not going to ignore this community, not now and not in the future,' Vance told the crowd on Wednesday.
Fairshake, a pro-crypto Super PAC, and its two affiliates announced in late January that they have $116 million in cash on hand, preparing their war chest for the 2026 midterms.
The dinner last week was limited to 220 attendees. The event drew $148 million in purchases, according to crypto firm Inca Digital.
Presidents have long attended private dinners to fill the coffers of their political committees, but last week's event will likely benefit Trump family-affiliated businesses, according to Raskin. The buyers at the dinner were not required to file disclosures, as would be the case when donating to political committees.
'Profiting off the memecoin is just the latest in a bewildering gamut of schemes in which you and your family have profited after your return to office and what you call 'the Swamp,'' the Maryland Democrat said.
The White House has previously said the private event does not constitute a conflict of interest, saying that Trump's assets are managed by his sons in a blind trust. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters the occasion 'is not a White House dinner' and that Trump was attending it in 'his personal time.'
Raskin also highlighted in his letter that a Chinese-born crypto mogul Justin Sun invested $75 million in World Liberty Financial, a Trump family venture, after the president won the 2024 presidential election. Then in February, the Securities and Exchange Commission asked a court to halt the suit for two months against Sun. The businessman has faced market manipulation charges since 2023.
Sun confirmed that he is the biggest owner memo token at the dinner.
'Foreign nationals—who are not allowed to donate a dollar to your presidential campaign under federal election laws—are now purchasing access to you by buying millions of dollars of your personal memecoin,' Raskin wrote.
'Moreover, given the opaque nature of the cryptocurrency buying process, there are few ways to ensure that the money used to purchase your memecoins are not from foreign governments or illegal proceeds in connection with terrorism, drug and human trafficking, money laundering, or other illegal activities,' the Democratic lawmaker added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
31 minutes ago
- Yahoo
t42 IoT Tracking Solutions Full Year 2024 Earnings: US$0.032 loss per share (vs US$0.008 loss in FY 2023)
Revenue: US$4.16m (up 3.8% from FY 2023). Net loss: US$1.75m (loss widened by 316% from FY 2023). US$0.032 loss per share (further deteriorated from US$0.008 loss in FY 2023). Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. All figures shown in the chart above are for the trailing 12 month (TTM) period t42 IoT Tracking Solutions shares are up 20% from a week ago. Don't forget that there may still be risks. For instance, we've identified 3 warning signs for t42 IoT Tracking Solutions (2 are concerning) you should be aware of. — Investing narratives with Fair Values A case for TSXV:USA to reach USD $5.00 - $9.00 (CAD $7.30–$12.29) by 2029. By Agricola – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: CA$12.29 · 0.9% Overvalued DLocal's Future Growth Fueled by 35% Revenue and Profit Margin Boosts By WynnLevi – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: $195.39 · 0.9% Overvalued Historically Cheap, but the Margin of Safety Is Still Thin By Mandelman – Community Contributor Fair Value Estimated: SEK232.58 · 0.1% Overvalued View more featured narratives — Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
The '12-Day War,' World War III, and how we describe what's happening in Iran
USA TODAY interviewed experts about what is happening in the world, and how it should be described. Here's what they said. President Donald Trump wants to call the most recent round of fighting between Iran and Israel the "12-Day War," but he may not get his wish. That's because journalists and historians are usually the ones who put names on wars, and they often don't choose the titles that government officials put on them. It's even less likely that the conflict could be named World War III, even though Trump has been warning about it for more than a decade, and even told the leader of Ukraine this year he was risking starting it. 'There's no official naming body, international or national,' said David Sibley, a military historian for Cornell University who is based in Washington, D.C. 'It's really just kind of agreed on by historians, by countries, and sometimes not even that.' USA TODAY interviewed experts on international relations and military history to talk about what is happening in the world, and how it should be described. Here's what they said. The '12-Day War' Howard Stoffer, a professor at the University of New Haven in Connecticut, said the most recent fighting between Iran and Israel marks a "historic turning point in the Middle East,' comparable to the Six-Day War in 1967 or the Yom Kippur War in 1973. Trump's suggested title might be a way to invoke 1967, "where Israelis used a preemptive airstrike to defeat the Arab countries around them," Sibley said. Israel emerged politically stronger and with more land. 'It certainly would invoke that in Israel and in the Middle East," Sibley said. "It certainly has that sort of pithiness that is appealing, and so it would be interesting to see. I don't know. It might stick." On June 26 and June 27, the news wire Reuters used the phrase '12-day war' to describe the sparring between the two countries earlier in the month, but not as the official name of the war, which would have a capitalized the "D" and "W." USA TODAY has used the term in quotation marks. Bryon Greenwald, a professor at National Defense University in Washington, D.C., questioned whether the attacks between Iran and Israel amounted to a war at all, or just a flare-up of a long-simmering conflict the countries have engaged in for decades. He pointed to airstrikes between Iran and Israel in March, predating the most recent conflict that led the United States to drop bombs on nuclear facilities. 'Does that shift the start date to the left, so it is now longer (than) 12 Days?' he asked. Peter Singer, a political scientist and author specializing in 21st-century warfare, said if Trump wants the name to catch on, he needs "better marketing." Graphic: How 70 years of history led to the U.S. bombing in Iran Who names wars? Even if the the name a president or military leader catches on, names catches on, journalists and historians may change them over time. 'WWI was commonly called the Great War until the media needed to name its successor,' said Don Ritchie, a former Senate historian. 'Historians are usually writing long after the fact and follow the common usage.' Wayne Lee, a professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, points to the usage by President George H.W. Bush's administration of 'Operation Desert Shield" and 'Operation Desert Storm' to describe early 1990s conflicts in the Middle East. Most people refer to those conflicts as the Gulf War, the First Gulf War, or the Persian Gulf War. When President George W. Bush invaded Iraq in 2003, his administration named it 'Operation Iraqi Freedom,' but most people call it the Iraq War. 'Sometimes even the names of wars aren't agreed on,' said Sibley, from Cornell. 'What we call the American Civil War, it depends on where you are what you call it − 'The War Between the States,' 'The War of Northern Aggression,' things like that.' Is World War III happening? When the U.S. bombed Iran on June 21, Americans grew anxious that World War III had started. Experts caution against declaring armed conflicts worldwide "world war." 'I would be really surprised if this morphed into something that looks anything like the past world wars we've had,' said Will Todman from the Center for Strategic and International Studies. 'But that does not mean peace is likely around the world. … I just don't think those will all be connected in the same way it was in World War I or World War II.' Russia has been at war with Ukraine for more than three years, at times threatening to use nuclear weapons but never following through. Experts said tensions between North Korea and South Korea could escalate. Or they said China, another nuclear country, could invade Taiwan. 'Forces were fighting just about everywhere around the globe,' during both world wars, Sibley said. 'So even a conflict in the Middle East between two sets of alliances, I don't know that that would rise to the level. I don't know. It retroactively could be labeled that if it gets bad enough.' Sibley said nuclear weapons act as a deterrent to attack, because countries fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III." Sibley said countries tend to be more cautious about invading or attacking nuclear powers because they fear having those weapons used against them. But he said, if two major powers exchanged nuclear weapons it could warrant the moniker "World War III." 'Post-1945, the assumption has been that World War III is going to be a nuclear one,' Sibley said. 'And, so, short of that, it's hard to see something getting that label.' Singer pointed to the massive casualties from world wars, numbers that the world has not seen in several of the most recent conflicts combined. "As many as 22 million people died in World War I and 85 million people in World War II,' he said. 'Stop trying to make World War III happen.'
USA Today
31 minutes ago
- USA Today
The businesses that are, and aren't, shifting production under Trump's tariffs
New York-based manufacturer Gear Motions purchases the majority of its parts from U.S. suppliers, with roughly 4% of inputs imported from other countries. It's a small fraction, but with a 10% base tariff in effect since early April, President and CEO Dean Burrows said his company, which specializes in custom cut and ground gears, will have to pass down those price increases to customers. That's not for lack of trying to find new suppliers. 'We have not been able to find a U.S. source that can make the product, and we have searched globally,' Burrows said. Tariffs are meant to fix that, with the Trump administration aiming to 'reverse the decades of globalization that has decimated our industrial base,' according to an April White House press release. But reviving the U.S. manufacturing base would take years, and economists have doubts that President Donald Trump's tariffs will be enough to bring it back to its former glory. Meanwhile, many U.S. manufacturers that rely on imports may be more likely to pass on tariff costs to consumers than reshore their supply chains. Nearly one-third of U.S. manufacturers' intermediate inputs are imported from other countries, according to a 2022 report from the Commerce Department. 'In the short run, it's going to hurt manufacturers. It's going to hurt the factory owners. It's going to hurt the workers,' said Nancy Qian, an economics professor at Northwestern's Kellogg School of Management. 'And that's on top of the pain the workers will feel when they go to the store and need to pay more for their imported (items).' Why shifting to US suppliers isn't always an easy solution Trump's tariffs are meant to position the U.S. as a 'global superpower in manufacturing' by drawing in new factories and manufacturing investments. 'The president has said early and often that the best way to avoid tariffs is to just come here and produce," Trump's top trade adviser, Peter Navarro, told CNBC in early April. 'We're going to get to a place where America makes stuff again.' But moving supply chains to the U.S. can be costly. Nearly two-thirds of 380 surveyed companies say building a new domestic supply chain would at least double their current costs, according to an April CNBC survey. Sixty-one percent said it would be more cost-effective to relocate to a lower-tariffed country. 'If the U.S. continues its focus on China, it will be successful in moving production out of China to some extent, but it won't move so much of it back to the U.S.,' Qian said. 'There are many other countries out there that can manufacture at costs lower than the U.S.' Even if tariffs boost U.S. manufacturing, it'll take years for new factories to get up and running. That could leave U.S. companies searching for domestic suppliers struggling in the meantime. Take 000Skin, a beauty company launched by Hannah Chang earlier this year. While 000Skin is based in New York, Chang has been sourcing the containers for her skin care products in China, where she says manufacturing capabilities are unmatched. 'I think people are not aware how much work and infrastructure even creating a plastic jar takes,' Chang said. But rising import costs from tariffs have thrown her for a loop. Chang has looked for alternative suppliers in the U.S., but says she has yet to find options that match the quality and price of what Chinese manufacturers can supply. She's considered shifting to a Mexican producer, but said it's been difficult finding one willing to work with smaller businesses. 'I'll probably just continue to look at China-based partners,' Chang said, adding that she's considering raising prices to cover at least some of the 30% tariff rate. Courtney Rivenbark looked into working with U.S. manufacturers when she created her apparel and jewelry brand, Coco Clem, in 2018. The high production costs turned her away, and she eventually pivoted to a partnership with a Chinese factory she said aligned with her ethical and environmental goals. 'China is just very advanced with their machines and equipment and technology,' Rivenbark said. 'The whole supply chain exists in China – the knits, the yard, the GOTS (Global Organic Textile Standard) certified organic cotton yarn.' After Trump announced new tariffs earlier this year, Rivenbark said she compared pricing from China with U.S. manufacturers. She said it would cost her three times more to create the same sweater in the U.S., and local manufacturers didn't have the technology to create certain garments in plus sizes. 'I would move (production to the U.S.) if the infrastructure was here,' Rivenbark said. But 'it's just so much more expensive. ... I'm not really interested in moving it outside of China because of a potential short-term policy switch.' How many factories, jobs are coming to the US? That's not to say tariffs aren't pressuring some businesses to increase their investments in the U.S. Whether those moves will lead to a dramatic influx of manufacturing jobs is another question. Cra-Z-Art – a New Jersey-based manufacturer that produces toys, activities and school supplies – in March announced plans to grow production space by 50% to 1.5 million square feet to combat the cost of tariffs. Lawrence Rosen, chairman of Cra-Z-Art, said it's too early to say how many jobs the move will create, but the company is looking to use automation 'wherever possible' to reduce direct labor costs. 'I need to control my 102-year-old company's destiny by controlling its future and not relying on global tariffs when things could change daily,' Lawrence said. 'By manufacturing in the USA, we save on freight, we save with automation. ... With automation, we can produce many of our products at a similar cost compared to increased costs with even 10% tariffs on freight.' A White House website claims Trump's policies have spurred trillions of dollars in new U.S. manufacturing investments that are 'fueling job growth, innovation, and opportunity across every corner of the country.' A number of those investments were in the works before Trump took office. A $5 billion investment from automaker Stellantis, for instance, includes plans to restart an idled plant in Belvidere, Illinois, to make trucks, a deal first announced in 2023. While there were talks of delays in 2024, the company in January confirmed that it would stick to the 2027 opening agreed to in union negotiations years prior. And a spokesperson for German medical technology company Siemens Healthineers, another company listed on the website, told USA TODAY that several of the initiatives included in its $150 million investment in new and expanded U.S. facilities have been underway for 'well over a year," although projects were accelerated to address rising economic and geopolitical uncertainty. Michael Strain, director of economic policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank, doesn't expect to see much reshoring tied to tariffs. 'For a business to set up a factory in the United States, that's a 10-year investment or longer,' Strain said. 'How can a business possibly know whether or not that would be profitable if tariff rates are changing every week?" Some data suggests the domestic manufacturing industry has actually taken a hit from tariffs, with trade policy uncertainty prompting some companies to tighten their purse strings. Economic activity in the manufacturing sector contracted in May for the third consecutive month to reach its lowest level since November, with both orders and output contracting, according to a survey by the Institute for Supply Management. Meanwhile, the manufacturing sector lost about 8,000 jobs between April and May despite an overall increase in employment, according to the Labor Department. Susan Helper, an economics professor at Case Western Reserve University in Ohio who served on the White House staff in both the Obama and Biden Administrations, believes tariffs can be a useful tool, but the uncertainty surrounding trade policy has been 'a real problem.' "I think what companies are doing is just not investing anywhere in anything and just waiting to see how things shake out,' she said.
