White House Confronts Scrutiny Over UAE Royal’s Stake in Trump Family’s Crypto Firm
Foreign investment in World Liberty Financial prompts ethical questions as administration defends its independence and transparency
The White House is facing intensified questions after reports that an investment vehicle backed by a United Arab Emirates royal acquired a significant stake in World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency venture co-founded by members of President Donald Trump’s family.
The purchase, agreed in January 2025 just days before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, granted an Abu Dhabi-linked group roughly 49 percent of the company in a transaction valued at about $500 million.
Documents and industry sources indicate that around $187 million of the initial payment went to entities controlled by the Trump family, with additional tens of millions directed to firms affiliated with the project’s co-founders.
While White House officials have maintained that the president has no involvement in his family’s business and that his assets are managed in a trust overseen by his children, critics and ethics experts argue the timing and scale of the investment raise legitimate concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
Some policy analysts have pointed to the subsequent approval of U.S. exports of advanced artificial intelligence chips to the UAE — a reversal of previous restrictions — as a development that fuels worries about perceived influence, even though no direct quid pro quo has been established.
In response to inquiries, the White House and representatives for World Liberty Financial have rejected assertions of improper influence, stressing that the investment was a private commercial decision made independently of government actions.
A spokesperson for World Liberty said the deal was executed to support the company’s growth and dismissed suggestions of special treatment.
White House counsel reiterated that the president adheres to ethical standards and that holding assets in a trust managed by family members prevents conflicts of interest.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have taken differing positions, with some calling for congressional oversight and others echoing the administration’s assurances of compliance with existing ethics rules.
Critics from across the political spectrum argue that clarity and transparency are crucial when foreign capital intersects with ventures linked to a sitting president, particularly in emerging and politically sensitive sectors like cryptocurrency.
As debate unfolds, the episode underscores ongoing tensions over governance, foreign policy and the role of digital assets within the U.S. regulatory framework.
The purchase, agreed in January 2025 just days before Mr. Trump’s inauguration, granted an Abu Dhabi-linked group roughly 49 percent of the company in a transaction valued at about $500 million.
Documents and industry sources indicate that around $187 million of the initial payment went to entities controlled by the Trump family, with additional tens of millions directed to firms affiliated with the project’s co-founders.
While White House officials have maintained that the president has no involvement in his family’s business and that his assets are managed in a trust overseen by his children, critics and ethics experts argue the timing and scale of the investment raise legitimate concerns about potential conflicts of interest.
Some policy analysts have pointed to the subsequent approval of U.S. exports of advanced artificial intelligence chips to the UAE — a reversal of previous restrictions — as a development that fuels worries about perceived influence, even though no direct quid pro quo has been established.
In response to inquiries, the White House and representatives for World Liberty Financial have rejected assertions of improper influence, stressing that the investment was a private commercial decision made independently of government actions.
A spokesperson for World Liberty said the deal was executed to support the company’s growth and dismissed suggestions of special treatment.
White House counsel reiterated that the president adheres to ethical standards and that holding assets in a trust managed by family members prevents conflicts of interest.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have taken differing positions, with some calling for congressional oversight and others echoing the administration’s assurances of compliance with existing ethics rules.
Critics from across the political spectrum argue that clarity and transparency are crucial when foreign capital intersects with ventures linked to a sitting president, particularly in emerging and politically sensitive sectors like cryptocurrency.
As debate unfolds, the episode underscores ongoing tensions over governance, foreign policy and the role of digital assets within the U.S. regulatory framework.
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
