Donald Trump's launch of a cryptocurrency token days before his inauguration has set the stage for what could become a landmark test of presidential power.
The $TRUMP token, which reached a market capitalization of nearly $6 billion within 24 hours of its launch, represents more than just another entry in the booming cryptocurrency market–it seems poised to serve as a vehicle to force the U.S. Supreme Court to definitively rule on the Constitution's Emoluments Clause while simultaneously helping challenge crucial governmental oversight regulations which help tackle financial crime.
The interpretation of what constitutes an "emolument" has evolved significantly since the Constitution's ratification.
The Founders included the Foreign Emoluments Clause primarily to prevent American officials from being corrupted by gifts from European monarchs, which was a common practice in diplomatic relations of the era. Alexander Hamilton specifically mentioned the danger of foreign princes bestowing "pecuniary favors" on American officials in Federalist No. 22.
“In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations for betraying their trust, which, to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty.
Hence it is that history furnishes us with so many mortifying examples of the prevalency of foreign corruption in republican governments.”
–Alexander Hamilton, “The Same Subject Continued: Other Defects of the Present Confederation”, Federalist No. 22, December 14, 1787
Early interpretations focused primarily on direct gifts and official payments.
In 1831, Attorney General John MacPherson Berrien issued an opinion suggesting that an emolument included "every species of compensation or pecuniary profit derived from a discharge of the duties of the office." However, this interpretation dealt primarily with domestic emoluments rather than foreign payments.
The Supreme Court has never directly ruled on what types of business revenue might constitute foreign emoluments. Lower courts have generally considered three factors when analyzing potential emoluments:
The degree of presidential control over the revenue stream,
Whether the payment is made in exchange for goods or services at market rates, and/or,
Whether foreign government involvement is direct or indirect.
The $TRUMP token structure tests each of these traditional analytical frameworks. The automated nature of cryptocurrency trading creates a novel form of presidential control, as Trump-affiliated entities would have no direct involvement in individual transactions but would benefit automatically from trading activity. The token's market price would be set by trading rather than predetermined rates, yet the revenue sharing structure ensures benefits flow to Trump-affiliated entities regardless of price movements. Perhaps most significantly, foreign government participation could be both direct through token purchases and indirect through trading activity that affects token value.
Previous emoluments cases involving Trump's businesses focused on discrete transactions like hotel stays or property leases. Courts struggled to establish whether individual business transactions at market rates constituted emoluments, particularly when foreign government involvement was difficult to document.
The new token structure transforms this analysis by creating an automated system for foreign participation with greater transaction transparency, which increases the ability of sophisticated participants to game the system.
The $TRUMP token, launched yesterday on the Solana blockchain platform, appears neatly structured to challenge traditional interpretations of what constitutes an emolument under the Constitution.
The token's ownership is concentrated in two entities: CIC Digital LLC, an affiliate of The Trump Organization, and Delaware company Fight Fight Fight LLC, which collectively control 80% of the token supply. This arrangement creates a direct line between foreign purchases of the token and revenue flowing to Trump-affiliated entities.
While the token's structure may be optimized for constitutional challenge, it carries significant technical and market risks for participants. The concentration of ownership creates high potential for market manipulation, while the reliance on corporate entities for revenue distribution introduces counterparty risk uncommon in decentralized cryptocurrency schemes.
The structure seems precisely engineered to test constitutional boundaries, raising novel questions about whether cryptocurrency trading revenue constitutes an emolument under the Constitution and how blockchain technology's inherent global nature intersects with restrictions on foreign payments to presidents.
The choice of Solana as the underlying blockchain platform is significant.
Unlike older blockchain networks like Bitcoin or Ethereum, Solana offers high-speed transactions and low fees, making it easier for global participants to trade the token. The platform's technical architecture allows for near-instantaneous settlement of trades, creating an automated system for foreign entities to participate in a market that benefits Trump-affiliated companies.
Solana's technical capabilities make it particularly suitable for this kind of constitutional stress test. Its high throughput and low transaction costs remove practical barriers that might have limited foreign participation in traditional business arrangements.
Unlike smaller, privacy-focused cryptocurrencies like Monero (increasingly favored by ransomware groups and sanctions evaders), Solana provides transparency. The platform processes up to 50,000 transactions per second while maintaining a complete public record of every interaction.
The $TRUMP token launch comes after several unsuccessful attempts to challenge Trump's business dealings under the Emoluments Clause during his first term.
Three major cases, CREW v. Trump, District of Columbia and Maryland v. Trump, and Blumenthal v. Trump, all failed to reach substantive review, being dismissed on procedural grounds such as standing or mootness. These cases focused on traditional business operations, such as hotel patronage by foreign officials. This new cryptocurrency structure potentially addresses some of the procedural hurdles that doomed previous cases by creating clear, documented chains of payments through blockchain transactions.
This traceability creates three key advantages for potential constitutional review which may have been possibly unavailable or difficult to obtain in previous emoluments cases:
First, foreign participation in the token ecosystem can be more definitively proven through blockchain analysis. Previous cases struggled to establish standing because plaintiffs couldn't clearly demonstrate foreign government involvement in Trump's businesses. With the $TRUMP token, every purchase from a foreign entity creates an indelible record of the same type which allows investigators to track state-sponsored cybercrime.
Second, the revenue flows to Trump-affiliated entities are transparent by design. The token's structure, with 80% ownership concentrated in Trump-affiliated entities and explicit revenue sharing from trading activity, could create clear documentation of how foreign payments reach Trump-connected businesses. This level of transparency exceeds even the beneficial ownership reporting requirements of the Corporate Transparency Act (discussed below).
Third, the specific ownership and revenue structures become impossible to modify once deployed. Unlike traditional business arrangements that can be restructured during litigation, smart contracts on Solana enforce these relationships programmatically and publicly.
While blockchain transactions offer transparency, they fall short of conclusively proving foreign government involvement in financial dealings.
For instance, although a transaction from Wallet A might ultimately benefit Trump-affiliated entities, the blockchain alone cannot reveal whether Wallet A belongs to a foreign government official or entity. This limitation mirrors issues in other contexts, such as determining whether a hotel guest is a foreign diplomat—neither the receipt nor the transaction provides the necessary identity details. Yet, the investigative toolkit isn’t entirely empty.
Key mechanisms could bridge the evidentiary gap:
KYC/AML Protocols: Tokens sold through regulated channels typically involve Know Your Customer (KYC) and Anti-Money Laundering (AML) requirements. These measures create identity records, offering a potential paper trail that links blockchain transactions to verified individuals or entities. In the case of the $TRUMP token, KYC/AML processes appear to be handled by MoonPay USA LLC.
Pattern Recognition: Advanced blockchain analytics tools, like those sold by firms such as Chainalysis, can identify transaction patterns indicative of institutional or governmental ownership. While not definitive proof, these insights could corroborate other forms of evidence.
Legal Discovery: In a courtroom setting, plaintiffs wield discovery powers to subpoena exchanges and service providers, compelling them to reveal records that might connect blockchain addresses to real-world identities.
These methods can serve as starting points for deeper investigations into foreign influence, even if blockchain data alone does not tell the whole story.
In previous emoluments cases against Trump, courts often dismissed the cases as ‘moot’ when Trump left office. Mootness occurs when the controversy at the heart of a case no longer exists, and there is no live dispute for the court to resolve. This is based on Article III of the Constitution, which requires federal courts to hear only "actual cases and controversies" rather than theoretical disputes.
Think about a previous Trump emoluments case involving hotel stays. If foreign officials stopped staying at Trump hotels or if Trump sold the hotel, the case could become moot. The harm would have ended, and courts generally won't issue opinions about past conduct that can't be remedied.
The continuous trading of a cryptocurrency token creates a different dynamic.
Here's why:
The harm is ongoing: As long as the token trades, foreign entities can continuously purchase it, generating new revenue for Trump-affiliated entities. Each new purchase creates a fresh constitutional violation.
The evidence is preserved: Unlike hotel stays or property deals that might be hard to document, every token purchase is permanently recorded on the blockchain.
The cryptocurrency structure essentially creates a perpetual source of potential emoluments clause violations, making it harder for courts to avoid addressing thorny constitutional questions by claiming the controversy has ended.
The timing of the launch coincides with a significant legal battle over federal financial oversight. A federal appeals court recently halted enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act (CTA), which requires businesses to disclose their beneficial owners to combat money laundering. This challenge, led by the National Federation of Independent Business and joined by the Libertarian Party of Mississippi, represents a concerning pushback against essential financial security measures.
The case began when several small businesses and organizations challenged the CTA, arguing it unconstitutionally requires them to report their ownership information to the Treasury Department. On December 3, 2024, Judge Mazzant in Texas agreed and blocked the law nationwide, finding that Congress likely exceeded its authority in passing it.
The case then took several dramatic turns:
First, the Biden administration appealed to the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals. After some back-and-forth between different panels of judges, on December 24, a three-judge panel lifted the nationwide injunction. The panel concluded that the government "made a strong showing" it would ultimately prove the law constitutional, particularly under Congress's Commerce Clause powers to regulate economic activity affecting interstate commerce.
In response to this ruling, FinCEN (the Treasury agency implementing the law) announced that reporting requirements are back in effect, though they extended the deadline for pre-2024 companies to January 13, 2025.
At the heart of this case is the question of federal power: can Congress require ownership disclosures from all registered business entities to combat money laundering and financial crimes? It also raises important questions about when courts should issue nationwide injunctions blocking federal laws.
Notably, one judge on the appeals panel, Judge Haynes, partially dissented. While agreeing a nationwide injunction was inappropriate, she would have kept the law blocked for just the specific plaintiffs who sued. The business groups challenging the law have vowed to appeal further.
The CTA was designed to address a critical vulnerability in America's financial system: the ability to create anonymous shell companies that can be used for money laundering, terrorist financing, and sanctions evasion. The law's opponents, including the Libertarian Party, argue that it represents “federal overreach”, and violates privacy rights. However, this limited perspective willfully overlooks the devastating impact of financial crime and the role of anonymous business structures in enabling it.
The intersection of the CTA challenge with the $TRUMP token creates a perfect storm of financial oversight concerns. The token's structure, combined with potential weakening of beneficial ownership disclosure requirements, could create dangerous precedents for financial transparency and national security. The involvement of Donald Trump and The Libertarian Party add clear political dimensions to what should be straightforward national security issues.
While cryptocurrency advocates often correctly point out that traditional banking systems process the majority of illicit transactions, the speed and pseudo-anonymity of cryptocurrency platforms make them particularly attractive for state-level bad actors. Meanwhile, the cryptocurrency industry has been in an ongoing struggle to contain violations of the Bank Secrecy Act and anti-money laundering laws.
The need for careful regulation of these new financial technologies should transcend political ideology.
Recent analysis from blockchain intelligence firm Chainalysis reveals a complex picture of cryptocurrency's role in illicit finance. In 2023, illicit transactions reportedly made up just 0.34% of all cryptocurrency volume: a fraction of the estimated percentage of traditional banking transactions involved in financial crime. However, this statistic masks the outsized role that cryptocurrency plays in specific national security threats.
Russia-affiliated ransomware groups have extracted hundreds of millions in cryptocurrency payments as part of their hybrid warfare campaign against Western targets. North Korea has stolen billions in cryptocurrency to fund its nuclear weapons program, primarily targeting Bitcoin and Ethereum. Iran increasingly uses cryptocurrency to bypass international sanctions, with a preference for Bitcoin due to its higher liquidity and widespread acceptance.
These state-level threats have led to heightened scrutiny of the cryptocurrency industry, often resulting in regulations that exceed those placed on traditional financial institutions despite their provably larger role in global illicit finance. This regulatory imbalance stems partly from cryptocurrency's association with high-profile criminal cases, but also from the lack of a comprehensive federal framework for cryptocurrency oversight.
For the $TRUMP cryptocurrency token to serve as a vehicle for Supreme Court review of the Emoluments Clause, several elements would need to align. A plaintiff with clear standing would need to challenge the arrangement, likely arguing direct competitive harm from the token's structure. The case would need to survive procedural challenges and remain relevant throughout the appeals process.
As the token begins trading and the president-elect prepares to take office, the stage is set for a convergence of these cases to reshape both constitutional interpretation and financial regulation.