Trump’s Corruption Hits Next Level With Shady $2 Billion Crypto Deal

The Trump family’s cryptocurrency business just got a $2 billion investment from a firm backed by the United Arab Emirates government. The deal is rife with conflicts of interest.

Zach Witkoff—son of Middle East envoy Steve Witkoff and founder of the Trump family’s crypto firm, World Liberty Financial—announced the deal at a conference in Dubai on Thursday. He was accompanied by Eric Trump, who runs his family’s business.

The Emirati firm, MGX, will be using World Liberty Financial’s so-called stablecoin, USD1, to make a deal with Binance, the world’s largest crypto exchange.

“We thank MGX and Binance for their trust in us,” Witkoff said. “It’s only the beginning.”

This is a massive donation from a foreign government to the Trump family that will ultimately go toward a crypto exchange that has been monitored by the U.S. government for two years for money laundering. Binance’s billionaire founder, Changpeng Zhao, has not so coincidentally been pushing for a Trump pardon after he pleaded guilty in 2023 to violating anti-money-laundering laws.

With this deal, the Trump family will be enriched beyond most people’s comprehension, and they have the UAE government to thank for it. One can predict that Trump is likely to treat the country very favorably from here on out, again demonstrating that his power does have a price.

Trump changed his tune on cryptocurrency and used it to raise millions of dollars for his last campaign. His firm has been incredibly lucrative since, and as Witkoff said, it’s only the beginning. This current venture is an instance of Trump further thumbing his nose at our flimsy conflict of interest laws and selling his influence to the highest bidder.

Looks like Mike Waltz will land on his feet after being pushed out as national security adviser.

President Trump announced on Truth Social Thursday afternoon that he will be appointing Waltz as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, with Secretary of State Marco Rubio serving as national security adviser in the interim in addition to his other posts of acting administrator of USAID and acting archivist of the United States.

The move comes after Trump’s first choice for the ambassadorship, Representative Elise Stefanik, withdrew her name from consideration after the Republican majority in the House of Representatives became too thin. Waltz’s departure from his national security adviser post along with his deputy, Alex Wong, was announced earlier on Thursday following several scandals in the past few months.

Most notably, in March, Waltz accidentally invited Atlantic editor-in-chief Jeffrey Goldberg to a private Signal chat where Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth discussed attack plans against Houthi targets in Yemen. Later, Waltz was found to have left his Venmo account public, exposing associates including government officials and lobbyists. He was also exposed for having much of his personal data, including account passwords, cell phone numbers, and email addresses, listed online.

Along with Hegseth, Waltz used Signal frequently for work purposes, reportedly being part of at least 20 group chats to discuss issues in Ukraine, China, Gaza, the Middle East, Africa, and Europe. Privately, Trump was reportedly furious with Waltz’s missteps, but evidently not enough to push him out of the administration entirely.

Waltz’s new job seems to indicate that there are limits to accountability in the Trump administration. While he lost one job, he arguably got one that comes with less scrutiny. While the Signalgate scandal continues, for now it appears that the only consequences for the White House will be some chairs being shuffled.

This story has been updated.

Laura Loomer sowed doubts about Mike Waltz, Donald Trump’s departing national security adviser, during a meeting in the Oval Office last month that resulted in the dismissal of multiple staffers on the National Security Council.  

In a podcast interview on The Tara Palmeri Show released Thursday, Trump’s favorite far-right conspiracy theorist said that she’d had concerns about Waltz’s loyalty after he signed off on the hiring of individuals who’d previously criticized the president. 

In the infamous meeting where she presented her so-called evidence to support the firing of several more traditionally neoconservative foreign policy hawks, Loomer had wanted to present a supposedly damning video of Waltz to the president too. Loomer claimed she’d been unable to show the video to Trump because Waltz had entered the room, but she shared the video on Palmeri’s podcast. 

Loomer played a 2016 advertisement for an anti-Trump PAC featuring Waltz, in which he criticized Trump’s statement mocking service members who’d been captured in combat. “It’s something that I just personally can’t stomach,” Waltz said in the video.  

“So if you can’t stomach it, why do you want to work for President Trump? If you can’t stomach it, why do you want to work for the administration?” asked Loomer, who evidently has a strong stomach for moral bankruptcy, as she has described herself as “pro-white nationalist” and a “proud Islamophobe.” 

The far-right activist clarified that she hadn’t been gunning for Waltz during the meeting. “No, I was not trying to fire Michael Waltz. My question is, if Michael Waltz is telling the president of the United States that these people are good people, that he personally signed off on, and that he personally vetted, well, what does a Michael Waltz vet entail? And is it biased, given the fact that he himself has made anti-Trump comments in the past?” she said. 

“I wasn’t trying to get him removed, I was just making the point that, you know, he’s not exactly a Trump loyalist,” Loomer said. 

Loomer was adamant she hadn’t been trying to get Waltz sacked, and claimed she was simply doing her due diligence while stressing her own enduring loyalty to the commander in chief.

“I don’t want you framing this as, ‘Oh, Laura Loomer tried to get Michael Waltz fired!’ I didn’t go in there trying to get him fired, I was just making the point that I’m a Trump loyalist. I never said—I never campaigned against Trump. Michael Waltz was working with a PAC that was trying to actively campaign against Donald Trump in 2016. So my point was, Michael Waltz is not going to have the same standard of loyalty that I have because he himself was a Trump hater, right? So I was trying to explain that,” she insisted.

“But how would that not make Trump want to fire him?” Palmeri asked. 

“I think it’s important that President Trump see these things,” Loomer replied. She said that she didn’t know if Trump had been made aware of the video before tapping Waltz. 

When Palmeri asked the White House whether Waltz had ever spoken to Trump about his critical comments, a Trump administration official responded with the following statement: “Mike has supported President Trump since after the primaries of 2016. He is a steadfast supporter of the president’s America First agenda, and works everyday to implement it.”

Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, are expected to leave their posts by the end of the day Thursday, but Trump announced that afternoon that he was nominating Waltz to serve as the ambassador to the United Nations. 

Crucially, it’s not clear that Waltz was removed from his post over concerns about loyalty. The hapless national security adviser had been the subject of multiple scandals during his brief time in the Trump administration, including mistakenly inviting a reporter to join a Signal group chat about plans to bomb Yemen.  

Donald Trump’s pick to head the U.S. attorney’s office in Washington, D.C., is running into roadblocks in the Senate.

Ed Martin’s confirmation vote won’t be taking place Thursday, with Democratic Senator Dick Durbin, the ranking member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, saying “[i]t’s my understanding that we are not going to move forward on the Martin nomination.”

The committee chair, Republican Senator Chuck Grassley, said in a hearing that Republicans need more time to vet Martin. Grassley’s communications director, Clare Slattery told The New Republic that the “committee is still reviewing Martin’s responses to questions for the record and waiting for Martin to return a few routine background materials.”

“Martin’s nomination could only be listed on the [committee] agenda once that process is complete,” Slattery said, adding that a vote on Martin would take place at a future date.

In recent days, though, Martin’s nomination has faced increased scrutiny from Republicans over his comments criticizing police officers at the Capitol building on January 6, 2021. Senator Thom Tillis, for example, said he has “serious concerns” about the nomination.

Martin has has long been an election denialist and apologist for the Capitol insurrection, but Senate Republicans have other concerns about him, too: He’s made several attacks against some of them, including Senators Susan Collins, Mitch McConnell, Lisa Murkowski, and John Cornyn, for, in his view, standing against Republican priorities and insufficiently supporting the president.

Martin also didn’t disclose to the Senate that he had made over 200 appearances on far-right and Russian state media outlets from 2016 to 2024. Martin also has been criticized for praising a January 6 rioter, Timothy Hale-Cussanelli, with a long history of antisemitic comments who has posted pictures of himself dressed as Hitler.

In the past few months, Martin has served as the interim U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C., and gone on a far-right crusade, threatening legal action against Trump and Elon Musk critics, including Democrats in Congress; journalists; and even Georgetown University. Democratic Representative Jamie Raskin has called for Martin to be investigated by the Justice Department’s inspector general for violating the law and ignoring legal ethics.

Normally, U.S. attorney nominees don’t come with this much controversy or negative news coverage. Will all of this be enough to sink Martin’s nomination? Trump has ignored media criticism in his appointments before, so he may very well force his Senate allies to ram Martin through regardless of how they feel.

This story has been updated.

A federal judge has barred the Trump administration from deporting immigrants on the basis of the Alien Enemies Act of 1798, ruling Thursday that the use of the World War II-era policy to banish alleged Tren de Aragua gang members from the country without due process is illegal.

In a 36-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Fernando Rodriguez ruled that Tren de Aragua’s presence did not constitute an “invasion,” as Donald Trump had previously claimed. Rodriguez, a first-term Trump appointee, wrote that the administration had inappropriately invoked the law, which only applies when the nation is facing an armed, organized attack by an invading country.

“The Proclamation exceeds the scope of the statute and, as a result, is unlawful,” Rodriguez decided. “[Administration officials] do not possess the lawful authority under the AEA, and based on the Proclamation, to detain Venezuelan aliens, transfer them within the United States, or remove them from the country.”

In March, the White House made a spontaneous decision to defy a court order by deporting more than 200 alleged members of the Venezuelan gang to El Salvador under the cover of the wartime policy.

Even after a U.S. district court judge ordered that the immigrants should remain in the U.S. as they await trial, Trump officials thwarted the law and sent the men sky bound regardless.

Trump justified the infraction by claiming Venezuelan immigration into the country constituted an “invasion,” and described the current era as a “time of war.” The men were taken to a notorious prison in El Salvador known as CECOT, where the U.S. government is paying El Salvador more than $20,000 per deportee to imprison the men.

Many of the accused men believed that they had been targeted for deportation due to their tattoos. ICE officials have admitted that the immigration agency has used tattoos to tie individuals to gangs, despite the fact that experts argue Venezuelan gangs do not use identifying tattoos.

In April, a U.S. circuit judge stated that the Trump administration’s use of the Alien Enemies Act to force immigrants out of the country had treated asylum-seekers worse than prior presidents treated actual German Nazis during World War II.

Mike Waltz spent his last moments as national security adviser publicly singing the praises of the man who decided to fire him.

Waltz and his deputy, Alex Wong, will both be leaving the Trump administration after a short tenure marked by blunders and controversy, particularly the first Signalgate group chat, which Waltz created.

Waltz’s first outpouring of flattery for the man expected to fire him came at the 100 Days Cabinet meeting on Wednesday, in which each Trump Cabinet member went around the table and shared one thing they loved about their fearless leader.

“Mr. President, the last four years the world experienced a total lack of zero leadership under Biden. And then we’ve had 100 days of your leadership,” Waltz fawned. “With respect, with strength, starting with ‘There’ll be all hell to pay.’”

Waltz kept this song and dance up into the next day.

“This is leadership at its finest led by our commander in chief, who loves the troops, and they love him. Secretary Hegseth leading from the front.… We’re 100 days in, and they are talking about modernizing the Army, counterdrone electronic warfare, getting our troops the things they need rapidly, cutting through the bureaucracy, consolidating a lot of these commands,” Waltz rambled on Fox News Thursday morning. “This is exactly what our modern force needs.”

While it’s unclear when Waltz became aware of his firing, it’s obvious that the compliments didn’t save him. Waltz and Wong are expected to be out by the end of the day.

The White House’s closest link to the white nationalist agenda had a full-blown meltdown Thursday over reports that the administration had been spurned by El Salvador over the requested release of Kilmar Abrego Garcia from a Salvadoran gulag.

During a White House press briefing, White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller claimed that Abrego Garcia had “extensively documented membership in MS-13” and was a “clear and present danger to the safety of the American people.”

Abrego Garcia entered the U.S. illegally more than a decade ago but was allowed to remain in the U.S. and evade deportation back to El Salvador when an immigration judge ruled in October 2019 that a return to his home country could expose him to violence or persecution from a local gang, Barrio 18. Abrego Garcia was never charged with a crime, and the only alleged tie between the construction worker and MS-13 stemmed from a 2019 report of a since-fired Maryland police officer.

Trump himself appears confused about Abrego Garcia’s connection to Latin American gangs. The president entered into a terse exchange with ABC News Tuesday night when he insisted that a doctored photo of supposed gang tattoos on Abrego Garcia’s knuckles was real. Experts say the photo is apparently photoshopped.

Trump administration officials acknowledged in court filings last month that Abrego Garcia’s forced exit from the country was an “administrative error.” The Supreme Court has ordered the executive branch to “facilitate” Abrego Garcia’s return to the U.S.

“It is a sad reflection on the state of our media and many of the outlets represented in this room that you obsessively try to shill for this MS-13 terrorist,” Miller ranted Thursday, chastising American news outlets for allegedly failing to cover the supposed rape, torture, and murder of American citizens at the hands of “the illegals that Biden was importing into our country.”

Miller then scolded the Biden administration for abiding by the Constitution in providing due process to individuals that the deputy chief of staff derided as “Tren de Aragua terrorists,” referring to the Venezuelan gang.

The Trump administration has sworn that every man it had deported to the Salvadoran megaprison known as CECOT was a member of Tren de Aragua, but family members and friends of the deportees claimed that’s not true. Some of the men that had been forced to board the planes had no criminal record.

Meanwhile, the U.S. government is paying El Salvador some $20,000 per deportee to imprison the men. Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele has also insinuated he intends to make more money off the uncharged men: in March, Bukele posted plans to force the immigrants into labor camps under the country’s “Zero Idleness program.”

In April, a U.S. circuit judge purported that the Trump administration’s actions were wildly unprecedented and that the nation’s current use of a World War II–era policy—the Alien Enemies Act—to force immigrants out of the country while ignoring their due process rights had treated asylum-seekers worse than prior presidents treated actual German Nazis during World War II.

Miller previously served as the senior adviser for policy and White House director of speechwriting during Trump’s first term. The far-right politico has made a name for himself for his vicious anti-immigrant policies, which include proposals to build mass deportation camps and deploy the military and the National Guard to seal the border, promising a forthcoming reality of “large-scale raids” and “throughput facilities.”

He’s long been viewed as one of the most apparent and rigid ties between Trump and the white nationalist agenda. Miller, a mentee of Trump’s former chief strategist Steve Bannon, has had a profound impact on the president-elect’s language and policy on immigration, despite entering Trumpworld with little policy or legal expertise. He was the architect of Trump’s first Muslim travel ban and has been a vocal proponent of family separation at the U.S. border, as well as limiting citizenship for legal immigrants. During his time in Trump’s first term, leaked emails revealed that Miller promoted white nationalist articles and books, especially on the idea that nonwhite people are replacing white people.

Donald Trump gave a completely incoherent response to a question about his crackdown on Harvard University and ended up ranting about fictional riots.

During a phone interview with NewsNation Wednesday, Stephen A. Smith, the firebrand sports pundit turned political commentator, asked the president to expand on a comment he’d made about Harvard University, which has seen $2.2 billion in government grants frozen by the current administration.

Smith asked Trump what he would say to those who view his attacks against the Ivy League school as “an attack on academic freedom, rather than a defense of fairness.”

“Well, I say this. We had riots in Harlem, in Harlem, and frankly if you look at what’s gone on—and people from Harlem went up and they protested, Stephen, and they protested very strongly against Harvard. They happened to be on my side,” Trump said.

“You know I got a very high Black vote. You know that? Very, very high Black vote. It was a very great compliment to me,” Trump continued.

The president appeared confused about the subject of the question, ranting about Harlem instead of Harvard and inventing a fictional riot in support of his war on higher education.

Trump’s stumped response is particularly disturbing because, crucially, Smith repeated the word “Harvard” three times in asking his question, and was responding directly to something Trump had just mentioned. Halfway through the question, Trump seemed to realize his mistake, but then felt it necessary to comment on the support of Black voters, which was at that point entirely off topic.

There have been concerns over Trump’s cognitive decline since he first started to deliver weaving, nonsensical stump speeches on the presidential campaign trail. Now his divorce from reality manifests mostly in his disastrous economic policy, as the president is more or less kept away from making lengthy addresses.

During an interview on ABC News Tuesday, Trump appeared to suggest that Kilmar Abrego Garcia, a man wrongfully deported to El Salvador, literally had “MS-13” tattooed on his hand. In reality, Trump had seen an image with these letters and numbers digitally added as a visual aid to the tattoos the government claimed proved his gang affiliation.

More than 80 professors at Harvard have pledged 10 percent of their salaries to help pay for the school’s legal battle against the Trump administration. In addition to the $2.2. billion in grants, and the cancellation of a $60 million contract, the White House also plans to pull $1 billion in federal funding for Harvard’s health research, which could potentially devastate Boston’s hospitals.

Trump administration officials are stockpiling basic supplies in anticipation of skyrocketing prices from the president’s ill-advised tariffs.

Rolling Stone reports that at least three administration officials, including one Trump aide, are buying toilet paper, food items, and other household supplies in bulk. They also told the publication that they know other conservatives working in politics, both inside and outside of the White House, who are doing the same.

When asked why they were hoarding, the Trump aide said, “Because it would be stupid not to!” They added that they and their partner were “stashing cash” in their Washington, D.C.-area home but that they still support Trump’s tariffs, saying there will be “short-term pain” before long-term “prosperity.”

It’s clear that Republicans in power are fearful of the consequences of Trump’s tariffs. Some GOP senators have expressed their concerns publicly, and even allied with Democrats on a Wednesday vote to condemn Trump’s tariffs, only to be stymied when Vice President JD Vance cast his tie-breaking vote to shoot the effort down.

Meanwhile, the economic shakeup continues to generate bad news, whether it’s the U.S. gross domestic product shrinking for the first quarter in three years, domestic car manufacturers saying they’ll lose billions of dollars, or unemployment numbers rising. Trump continues to try and brush it all aside, blaming President Biden and claiming that a “boom” is right around the corner. The administration’s chief tariffs architect, Peter Navarro, even said the economy is great—aside from the tariffs.

Many Republicans are worried that the ensuing trade wars and price hikes from the tariffs will hurt the economy, making these basic supplies more expensive. But because they’re also scared of Trump and don’t want his or his supporters’ vengeance, they’ll offer phony public support or, at the very least, make feeble, low-stakes acts of opposition. All the while, they’ll hoard toilet paper or engage in shady Wall Street investments for their own personal benefit.

The sweeping car and auto part tariffs that President Trump claims will revitalize the domestic industry will cost one of its biggest companies millions of dollars. 

General Motors CEO Mary Barra estimated that Trump’s tariffs will cost the company between $4 and $5 million of revenue this year, in a letter sent to shareholders Thursday. The company has lowered its profit goal in response. This comes as Trump actually retreated from the much more aggressive tariffs he had originally planned for the industry. 

Even in the face of financial loss, Barra believes the company will keep the prices the same for consumers. But there’s no guarantee. 

“We believe … pricing is going to stay at about the same level as it is,” she told CNN’s Erin Burnett in a Thursday interview. “Pricing changes in our industry at least monthly, and sometimes more frequently. We’re going to respond to the market.”

Lower earnings aren’t just bad for Barra and her shareholders, they’re bad for the hundreds of thousands of working-class Americans (many of whom voted for Trump) who depend on GM for their livelihoods. Trump’s reckless tariffs and trade wars have set automakers and autoworkers on edge rather than reassured them.