President Donald Trump and his family’s cryptocy company, World Liberty Financial (WLFI), are facing a federal lawsuit alleging they improperly profited from more than $2 billion in cryptocy-related transactions involving entities linked to the United Arab Emirates (UAE). Filed by a shareholder of stablecoin issuer Circle Internet Group, the lawsuit claims that two major transactions involving World Liberty Financial violated the U.S. Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which restricts federal officials from accepting certain benefits from foreign governments without congressional consent. The White House and World Liberty Financial have denied the allegations.
The lawsuit was filed on October 22 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia by J. Benjamin Greenberg, a former Circle employee and shareholder.
Greenberg brought the case as a shareholder derivative lawsuit, meaning he is attempting to pursue claims on Circle’s behalf rather than solely for his personal benefit.
The complaint names several defendants, including:
President Donald Trump
World Liberty Financial, the Trump family-backed cryptocy business
Steve Witkoff, the U.S. special envoy to the Middle East
Four affiliated limited liability companies
The lawsuit alleges that financial arrangements involving UAE-linked entities provided improper economic benefits to Trump while he was serving as president.
It also argues that the transactions benefited World Liberty Financial’s USD1 stablecoin, which competes with Circle’s USDC.
Importantly, Circle did not file or authorize the lawsuit. The company confirmed that Greenberg initiated the action independently as a shareholder.
The first transaction identified in the lawsuit involves a $500 million investment in World Liberty Financial.
According to the complaint, an investment vehicle backed by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE’s national security adviser, agreed to purchase a 49% stake in World Liberty Financial shortly before Trump’s January 2025 inauguration.
The lawsuit alleges that although the agreement was reached before Trump returned to office, he subsequently received financial benefits from the transaction while serving as president.
The distinction is central to the plaintiff’s constitutional argument.
Greenberg contends that the financial benefits represented prohibited foreign-government-linked payments under the Foreign Emoluments Clause.
The lawsuit seeks a judicial determination on that question. No court has ruled that the investment violated the Constitution.
The second transaction involves a $2 billion investment in cryptocy exchange Binance by MGX, an Abu Dhabi-based investment company chaired by Sheikh Tahnoon.
The investment was funded using USD1, the dollar-pegged stablecoin issued by World Liberty Financial.
The complaint argues that the transaction provided substantial economic advantages to World Liberty Financial by increasing the circulation and commercial importance of its stablecoin.
According to the plaintiff, those benefits potentially translated into additional financial gains for Trump and his family’s business interests.
The lawsuit raises several questions about the arrangement:
Why USD1 was selected to facilitate the $2 billion Binance investment.
Whether UAE government-linked entities provided financial benefits to businesses associated with the president.
How World Liberty Financial benefited from the stablecoin’s expanded circulation.
Whether Trump personally received prohibited financial gains while holding public office.
Using USD1 for a transaction does not, by itself, establish a constitutional violation.
The legal dispute concerns the alleged financial benefits, the connections to foreign state entities and whether those arrangements fall within constitutional restrictions.
The Foreign Emoluments Clause is part of Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution.
It generally prohibits individuals holding covered federal offices from accepting certain gifts, payments, offices or other benefits from foreign governments without congressional consent.
The provision is intended to reduce the risk of foreign governments gaining improper influence over U.S. officials through financial arrangements.
The World Liberty Financial lawsuit raises a complicated legal question about how that restriction applies to private businesses connected to a sitting president.
The plaintiff argues that profits generated through the UAE-linked transactions qualify as prohibited benefits.
The defendants dispute that interpretation and maintain that their business activities comply with applicable law.
A court would need to address both the constitutional claims and procedural questions about whether Greenberg has legal standing to pursue them.
Greenberg is asking the federal court to order several remedies.
These include:
A declaration that the challenged financial benefits violated the Foreign Emoluments Clause.
Recovery of profits determined to have been unlawfully obtained.
Disclosure and accounting of additional cryptocy-related payments involving foreign governments.
Unspecified monetary damages and other appropriate relief.
The lawsuit does not establish that the full $2.5 billion involved in the two transactions was paid to Trump personally.
That figure represents the combined reported size of the $500 million equity transaction and $2 billion Binance investment.
Any determination of personal profits, recoverable funds or damages would require further legal proceedings.
Both the White House and World Liberty Financial have disputed the lawsuit’s claims.
White House spokesperson Anna Kelly described the case as frivolous and rejected allegations of conflicts of interest.
World Liberty Financial spokesperson David Wachsman said the company complies with U.S. laws and regulations and maintains that its personnel do not work for the federal government.
The company characterized the claims as lacking merit and indicated that it intends to contest them in court.
Circle separately emphasized that it had no role in initiating, directing or authorizing the shareholder lawsuit.
The case remains at an early stage, and the allegations have not been proven in court.
The lawsuit also references broader U.S.-UAE business and policy developments.
Among them are the Trump administration’s decisions concerning advanced American AI chip exports to the UAE and the presidential pardon of Changpeng Zhao, Binance’s founder.
The plaintiff points to those developments as part of the context surrounding the financial relationships involving World Liberty Financial.
However, the existence of these government actions does not independently prove that they were exchanged for cryptocy investments or other financial benefits.
The administration has denied wrongdoing.
The dispute arrives amid continuing congressional scrutiny of World Liberty Financial’s foreign business relationships and the potential conflicts of interest associated with cryptocy ventures involving public officials.
Launched in 2024, World Liberty Financial has become one of the most closely watched cryptocy businesses associated with the Trump family.
Its operations include the WLFI governance token and USD1, a dollar-pegged stablecoin designed for digital asset payments and financial transactions.
The company’s growth has brought attention to the intersection of cryptocy regulation, private business ownership and federal government policy.
Because USD1 competes in the same market as Circle’s USDC, the lawsuit also introduces a commercial dimension to the constitutional dispute.
The plaintiff argues that World Liberty Financial’s relationships with UAE-linked investors gave it advantages that could negatively affect Circle and its shareholders.
Whether those allegations can support a derivative lawsuit remains a question for the court.
The lawsuit against Trump and World Liberty Financial brings together several issues that have become increasingly important as cryptocy enters mainstream finance.
These include foreign investment, stablecoin competition, presidential business interests and the constitutional limits on financial benefits involving foreign governments.
For the cryptocy industry, the case could draw additional attention to how politically connected digital asset businesses operate and disclose their financial relationships.
However, its broader legal implications will depend on whether the lawsuit proceeds and how the court interprets the constitutional and shareholder claims.
The American Bankers Association (ABA) has sharply criticized the Office of the Comptroller of the…
Aerodrome Finance and Velodrome, two of the leading decentralized exchanges (DEXs) on Base and Optimism,…
OpenAI's artificial intelligence models helped uncover two critical security vulnerabilities in PHP, the programming language…
SoFi Technologies has launched SoFi Earn (SOFIE), a new blockchain-based banking product that allows consumers…
Microsoft, Google's parent company Alphabet and Goldman Sachs have joined a growing list of major…
Anthropic, the artificial intelligence company behind Claude, has announced plans to dedicate 5% of its…