Trump Media wants to launch a crypto ETF backed by bitcoin and other top tokens
The company filed with the SEC this week to launch "Crypto Blue Chip ETF."
This new fund would hold bitcoin, ethereum, solana, and other crypto tokens.
Trump Media & Technology Group wants to dive deeper into crypto.
The Truth Social parent company submitted an S-1 filing with the US Securities and Exchange Commission on July 8, seeking approval to launch the Truth Social Crypto ETF.
The filing shows that it is sponsored by Yorkville America Digital, an asset management company based in Florida. This firm partnered with Trump Media in April 2025 to launch a series of crypto ETFs in conjunction with Crypto.com.
The possible ETF is the latest move by Trump and his companies to deepen ties to crypto. The president has launched meme coins and stablecoins and has pushed for greater adoption of crypto and government support for the space.
The passing of the GENIUS Act in June was a milestone for the industry, and top administration officials have been signaling greater support for crypto. Last month, William Pulte, director of the Federal Housing Finance Agency, said he had directed mortgage finance giants Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to start counting crypot as collateral when assessing mortgage risk.
Trump Media's ETF will hold most bitcoin, as well as smaller amounts of other top tokens.
"The Trust's allocation of its assets to the Portfolio Assets (the "allocation ratio") is initially expected to approximate percentages by value of 70% bitcoin, 15% ether, 8% SOL, 5% CRO and 2% XRP," the filing states.
Bitcoin has jumped 18% this year, continuing a rally to fresh records about $111,000 in recent weeks.
Shares of Trump Media were down on Wednesday, and have struggled this year as areas of the "Trump trade" that soared in the wake of the 2024 election stumble in 2025.
Read the original article on Business Insider
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
19 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why it's so challenging for Trump to fire Powell
A firing of Jerome Powell by President Trump would likely open up a legal war never before seen in the US, without any guarantee of a courtroom victory for the White House. That may be why Trump hasn't done so. Yet. Powell has made his intentions clear. He said earlier this year that he wouldn't leave if Trump tried to fire him and that his removal is 'not permitted by law.' Fed officials privately have been preparing for a legal battle as far back as Trump's first term, when the president also toyed with removing the chair, according to the Wall Street Journal. The strength of Powell's case is based on some protections of Fed autonomy already embedded in US statute. The Federal Reserve Act, which created the central bank in 1913 and was amended in 1935, states that each member of the Fed board shall hold office for 14 years "unless sooner removed for cause by the President." The intention of the "for cause" condition was to enhance the Fed's independence by making it more difficult for a president to fire its board members, who are appointed by the president. There are also signs that the Supreme Court would step in if Trump were to act, although the high court's views on the topic are unclear. In an ambiguous ruling earlier this year, Supreme Court justices allowed Trump to temporarily proceed with the firings of board members at two other independent agencies. In granting the administration's request, the court said that in its judgment, the government "is likely to show" that the fired board members exercised "considerable executive power," a view that suggests the president possesses broader power to remove the officials at will. Read more: How much control does the president have over the Fed and interest rates? Legal challenges from those board members are still playing out at an appeals court. But Powell got a good sign Thursday when a Washington, D.C., district court judge ruled that another Trump firing of FTC commissioner Rebecca Slaughter was illegal and that she should be reappointed. The judge cited a 90-year-old Supreme Court precedent that limits the power of the president to dismiss independent agency board members except in cases of neglect or malfeasance. That precedent offers Powell a layer of protection. It was set in a 1935 case titled Humphrey's Executor v. US that challenged President Franklin Roosevelt's termination of the US Federal Trade Commissioner. The court held that the president's authority to terminate agency officials at will was limited to purely executive officers, and not those leading independent agencies that engage in regulation and adjudication. Congress, the court said, had power to limit the president's removal power over those officials "for cause" — then described that term to mean inefficiency, neglect of duty, or malfeasance. Trump is challenging whether that precedent applies across various independent agencies, but the Supreme Court has not yet made a definitive ruling on whether it should stand. If the precedent falls and leaves no explicit protection for the central bank, a Powell firing could certainly be a lot easier to pull off. 'For cause' Powell does have one major vulnerability, however. That 'for cause' language embedded in the Federal Reserve Act hasn't really been defined or tested in court. The statute also doesn't have any language that specifically addresses the chair of the Board of Governors. And the White House has been using a new line of attack against Powell that could offer a path to a 'for cause' dismissal, as the president and his allies raise concerns about a $2.5 billion renovation of the central bank's headquarters. "I mean it's possible there's fraud involved with the $2.5 billion renovation," Trump told reporters on Wednesday, after saying earlier that the project "sort of is" a fireable offense. He said he wasn't planning to fire Powell but also left the door open, saying, "I don't rule out anything, but I think it's highly unlikely, unless he has to leave for fraud.' National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett — one of Powell's potential successors — said last Sunday on ABC News's "This Week" that whether the president has the legal authority to fire Powell before his term is up next May "is being looked into" and that "certainly, if there's cause, he does." But he also acknowledged it was a 'highly uncertain legal matter.' Politico reported that outside lawyers told the White House counsel's office it would likely lose a legal fight with Powell if Trump removed Powell solely over accusations that he mishandled renovations and that White House officials were also unsure whether it would work. Politico quoted one official who said, 'Whether or not it's illegal, I don't know. But is it a good thing to point out to damage this guy's image? Yeah.' The White House is certainly showing no signs of letting up on its pressure. They are seeking a site visit to see the Fed's renovations in person. Powell has asked the Fed's inspector general to review the costs involved. He also sent White House budget director Russ Vought a letter Thursday offering a point-by-point rebuttal of questions raised about the project and denying reports of a VIP elevator and VIP dining rooms. "We take seriously the responsibility to be good stewards of public resources," he said, and "we have taken great care to ensure the project is carefully overseen.' Case Western Reserve University business law professor Eric Chaffee said he thinks Powell would win any legal battle with the White House on the 'for cause' clause, but he doesn't think such a confrontation will come to pass given that Powell only has 10 months left as chair. "We're just so close to the end of the term that I think the Trump administration is very likely just to wait things out,' he said. Alexis Keenan is a legal reporter for Yahoo Finance. Follow Alexis on X @alexiskweed. Click here for in-depth analysis of the latest stock market news and events moving stock prices Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
The Hill
20 minutes ago
- The Hill
Most think GOP tax bill will help wealthy, harm the poor: Survey
Most Americans think that President Trump's 'big, beautiful bill,' which he signed into law earlier this month, will help those who are wealthy and harm those who are poor, according to a new survey that was released Friday morning. The new Associated Press-NORC Center for Public Affairs Research found that 64 percent of U.S. adults said the Republican-led tax and spending bill, which Trump signed into law on July 4, will do 'more to help' wealthy people. On the flip side, 7 percent said it would do more to hurt them, while 27 percent said it would not make a difference. Just over a quarter, 26 percent, said the bill would benefit middle-class people. Just over half, 51 percent, said it would hurt them, while 22 percent said it would not make a difference, according to the survey. Similarly, 24 percent of respondents argued the legislation would do more to help 'people like you,' while 51 percent argued it would do more to hurt them, according to the poll. Some 23 percent stated the bill would not make a difference. Just 1-in-5 said the tax and spending law would do more to help low-income people. The majority, 61 percent, said the legislation would do more to hurt those people, while 17 percent argued it would not make a difference, the survey showed. Democratic Party voters are more likely to say the legislation would assist the wealthy and hurt the middle-class and the poor, compared to Republicans. GOP voters are more likely to state the 'big, beautiful bill' will aid rather than harm the middle-class, according to the poll. When it comes to the impact on low-income Americans, the sides are divided. Around four-in-10 Republicans think the bill would do more to help low-income people, while just three percent of Democrats said the same. Some 17 percent of independents argued the legislation would do more to help those who are low-income. Trump's massive spending bill would bring new tax breaks for older adults and overtime workers. The legislation includes funding to help hire border patrol agents and officers. The package also reduces green energy tax credits and cuts Medicaid and food assistance programs. A CNN poll released Wednesday found that 61 percent of Americans oppose the GOP's massive package. Only 11 percent said they 'strongly support' the bill, along with 27 percent who said they 'somewhat support' it. A Harvard CAPS/Harris poll, which was published on Monday, found that Americans were split, with 44 percent saying they supported the 'big, beautiful bill.' Another 44 percent said they did not support it. Some 12 percent were unsure. The poll was conducted from July 10-14 among 1,437 adults. It had a margin of error of plus or minus 3.6 percentage points.
San Francisco Chronicle
20 minutes ago
- San Francisco Chronicle
Trump's pivot from aid to trade leaves Africa wary as it faces tariffs and uncertainty
HARARE, Zimbabwe (AP) — When U.S. President Donald Trump met five African leaders in Washington in July, his lack of familiarity with the continent was on display. He praised Liberian President Joseph Boakai's English — Liberia's official language — and gestured at another leader to wrap up remarks. But the bigger takeaway was Trump's pledge to transform U.S.-Africa relations: a shift from aid to trade, even as the region reels from steep tariffs and sweeping aid cuts. African leaders offered minerals from manganese to uranium and possibly lithium. Senegal's president even sought to leverage Trump's love of golf by inviting him to build a course. Yet many nations are anxious about Washington's new path. After slashing billions in foreign aid, including shutting down the U.S. Agency for International Development — which provided over $12 billion in humanitarian assistance in 2025 alone — the Trump administration says it is forging a new approach: 'commercial diplomacy.' Trade, not aid, is the order of the day. 'It is now truly our policy for Africa,' said Troy Fitrell, the top U.S. diplomat for Africa, when announcing the strategy in Abidjan, Ivory Coast, in May. Ambassadors will now be judged not by aid projects but on 'how well they support' local businesses and 'how effectively they advocate for U.S. business and the number of deals they facilitate,' he said. Africa accounts for less than 1% of U.S. goods trade, but Fitrell called it 'the world's largest untapped market,' projecting its purchasing power could surpass $16 trillion by 2050. Early deals, lingering doubts Washington touts quick progress: 33 agreements worth $6 billion in Trump's first 100 days, plus $2.5 billion in commitments at a U.S.-Africa business summit in June. Projects span grain storage and digital infrastructure in Angola, energy ventures in Rwanda, Sierra Leone and Congo, and tourism in Ethiopia. Still, many worry about the costs. Job losses and economic pain from tariffs are mounting even as Washington celebrates these wins. Trump did not invent the idea of trade over aid. African leaders have pushed for this since the 1970s. The problem, critics say, is the caveat: steep tariffs and uncertainty over the African Growth and Opportunity Act (AGOA), the U.S. flagship program for trade with the continent. 'In reality, these tariffs are not about trade balances. It's economic warfare,' said the Alternative Information and Development Centre, a South African NGO. Fears that jobs could go Trump has imposed a 30% tariff on selected South African goods and threatens another 10% for nations aligned with the BRICS bloc of developing economies. South Africa's Automotive Business Council says vehicle exports to the U.S. have plunged over 80%, warning that tariffs 'strike at the heart of South Africa's industrialization agenda.' More than 100,000 jobs, mostly in auto and agriculture, are at risk, the council says. Smaller nations are also reeling. Lesotho declared a state of disaster after being hit with 50% duties — the second-highest rate after China — before Trump announced a 90-day pause. About 12,000 textile jobs hang in the balance, according to Lesotho's Minister of Trade, Industry, and Business Development, Mokhethi Shelile. From vanilla farmers in Madagascar to cocoa growers in Ivory Coast and oil exporters in Nigeria, tariffs have shaken economies and raised doubts about Washington's intent. 'The U.S. certainly can't have it both ways,' said Bester Brendon Verster, an economist at Oxford Economics Africa. 'The 'aid to trade' stance risks leaving Africa behind once the U.S. has gotten what it wanted, which will probably be critical minerals." An agreement on the brink AGOA, enacted in 2000 and renewed in 2015, allows duty-free U.S. access for nearly 2,000 goods from 32 African nations. It expires in September, with no clear sign that it will be renewed. South Africa's trade minister warned it will be 'very difficult' to keep AGOA under current conditions. Fitrell said he is a 'big fan' of the deal but told African leaders they must do more to lobby Congress. Future arrangements may require 'much greater attention toward some form of reciprocity' to reflect Trump's push for U.S. economic interests, he said. Meanwhile, China is leveraging zero-tariff policies to expand its influence. In June, China — already Africa's biggest trading partner — said it plans to grant duty-free market access to 53 African nations. Still, Verster said some African nations might be cautious about strengthening ties with China, for fear of triggering retaliation from the U.S. 'Aligning with China … could possibly bring about more economic punishment from the U.S.," he said.
