

SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.


Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
The gaudy gift came just weeks before Trump exempted Belgium’s diamond industry from his sweeping tariff regime, which the senators said “fit seamlessly” into a pattern of relief for those who give him gifts.
A pair of Democratic US senators has some questions for Belgium's diamond industry after it gave President Donald Trump what they said appears to be a "cartoonish bribe."
On Monday, Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) sent a letter inquiring about a "watch-sized, 18-karat gold ring encrusted with 321 diamonds and 75 gemstones" that the president had been gifted in late June by the Antwerp World Diamond Center (AWDC), a lobbying group for Belgian diamondmakers.
The custom ring, emblazoned with a gem-encrusted presidential seal, diamond emblems with the initial "T," and an interior engraving that reads "Crafted in Antwerp for Donald John Trump," is estimated to be worth $25,000-35,000.
“A very special thank you to my friends from Antwerp for the magnificent Freedom 250 ring,” Trump said in a video message during an event in Brussels upon receiving the gift at an event commemorating the 250th anniversary of the United States.
Just weeks later, the administration announced it was exempting European diamonds from Trump's sweeping tariff regime, which he was attempting to reinstate after the US Supreme Court had struck it down earlier this year.
After the diamond tariffs had been lifted, a press release from AWDC celebrated the decision, calling it a “significant boost” for Antwerp's diamond industry and “its international competitive position.”
According to the company, Antwerp exports about $2 billion worth of diamonds to the US each year. At 10%, that means importers would avoid paying about $200 million in tariffs annually under the exemption.
The senators noted that Isidore Mörsel, the president of the World Diamond Center, "explicitly linked the gift to trade issues" when presenting it to the US Ambassador to Belgium, Bill White, for delivery to Trump.
Mörsel said that AWDC commissioned the ring to "celebrate that enduring relationship" with the Antwerp diamond sector’s "most important trading partner for generations."
The senators said AWDC's public-private partnership with the Belgian government meant that Trump might be required to give up the ring under the Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution, which forbids federal officers from receiving gifts from foreign states without Congress' consent.
However, they said "presenting a gift of this magnitude could still play directly into President Trump’s well-established affinity for shiny gifts."
White House spokesperson Kush Desai has denied that the gift had any influence over Trump's decision, telling MS NOW that the administration "agreed to provide preferential tariff treatment for diamonds as part of our historic trade deal with the European Union that was signed last summer."
He added that “the only special interest guiding the Trump administration’s decision-making is the best interest of the American people.”
But the senators said the gift to Trump "fit seamlessly into [the] pattern" of executives appearing to use gifts and flattery to obtain lucrative tariff exemptions.
Apple CEO Tim Cook, who donated $1 million to the president’s inauguration committee, appeared to leverage his “very good relationship” with the President and a well-timed “24-karat” gold gift to secure exemptions from tariffs for various Apple products imported from China.
After Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang purchased a seat at President Trump’s Mar-a-Lago table for $1 million, the administration reversed course on implementing rules that would have prevented Nvidia from selling its most advanced chips to China.
And the administration slashed tariffs on Swiss imports from 39% to 15% just days after Swiss executives—including Rolex CEO Jean-Frédéric Dufour—presented President Trump with a personalized gold bar worth more than $130,000 and a luxury Rolex desk clock.
The senators said Antwerp's gift "raise[d] serious legal questions" under federal bribery law. They asked Mörsel and the jeweler who made the ring, David Gotlib, to provide details about the gift, including who funded it. They also requested information about any contact between the diamond lobbyists and White or other administration officials.
DOGE was a "slapdash and deceptive effort" that only succeeded in "putting Americans’ sensitive data at risk and hollowing out critical agencies," said US Sen. Gary Peters.
A report from the Government Accountability Office released Thursday details how Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency wildly exaggerated the savings it was able to deliver for the US federal government.
The report, requested by Sens. Gary Peters (D-Mich.) and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), finds that DOGE used a number of tricks to inflate the value of its purported savings, including taking credit for ending leases that were already in the process of being terminated and falsely claiming to have canceled contracts that were left intact.
The report also finds that DOGE "did not provide sufficient information to verify the method used to calculate 96%" of savings purportedly achieved through grant cancellations.
And in cases where DOGE actually was responsible for terminating a contract or cancelling a lease, the report notes that it "did not consistently use its stated methodology for calculating savings or disclose limitations in a sufficient manner."
Even in instances where the department followed its stated methodology, the report adds, "it did not account for many complexities and nuances of federal contracting," such as obligations or settlement costs that may have come from ending a contract.
In touting the GAO report, Peters said it exposed DOGE as a "slapdash and deceptive effort" at streamlining government spending that only succeeded in "putting Americans’ sensitive data at risk and hollowing out critical agencies."
Blumenthal accused the Trump administration of using DOGE as cover to "recklessly slash government programs, ransacking critical services and resources and proudly displaying supposed 'savings.'"
Jessica Tillipman, associate dean for government procurement law at the George Washington University Law School, highlighted a number of DOGE flubs in a social media post breaking down the GAO report, including a "favorite example" of DOGE claiming $28 million in savings related to an Air Force contract that in reality only saved around $600,000.
Eric Boehm, writer for libertarian magazine Reason, said that the GAO report revealed that the savings Musk and his minions claimed from their work was "mostly just made up."
In his assessment, Blumenthal said the report only "underscores the need for increased transparency and accountability from the Trump administration so the American public can better understand DOGE’s activities as the organization guts vital government programs."
"Blanche has demonstrated over and over that he is purely a vessel for Trump to punish his enemies and reward his 'allies,'" said US Rep. Daniel Goldman.
Democratic lawmakers and anti-corruption campaigners reacted with disgust on Monday after two holdout Republican senators struck a deal to move forward with Todd Blanche's confirmation as US attorney general.
Sens. Thom Tillis (R-NC) and John Cornyn (R-Texas) said they would support Blanche's confirmation after he formally rescinded the $1.8 billion slush fund that had been set up to pay political allies of President Donald Trump who had purportedly been harmed by a "weaponized" justice system under former President Joe Biden.
"We want to express our gratitude to Mr. Blanche and his staff for working with us on this, and we look forward to voting to advance his nomination out of the Senate Judiciary Committee soon," the two Republicans said. "From the outset, we were clear that we needed a written document addressing our concerns."
However, a Monday report in The Washington Post noted that Blanche's written statement rescinding the fund "appeared to fall short of what Cornyn and Tillis were demanding last week," as they had originally insisted that "they needed to see revisions to the original settlement agreement" struck between Trump and the US Department of Justice (DOJ) that created the fund in the first place.
The deal also left in place a plan to give Trump and his family immunity from scrutiny for past tax returns filed with the IRS, though Blanche clarified on Sunday that this would not shield them from future IRS audits.
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) slammed his Republican colleagues for the agreement to confirm Blanche, noting that its "tax immunity deal still gifts Trump an unprecedented, unconscionable benefit worth $100s of millions."
"Republicans should reject it—and Blanche," wrote Blumenthal. "Lipstick on this rancid grift is no excuse to confirm him."
Sen. Alex Padilla (D-Calif.) criticized the Blanche deal for being "full of loopholes" that wouldn't prevent Trump "from using taxpayer money to pay off January 6th insurrectionists" in the future.
"Todd Blanche has always been Trump's personal lawyer—and this 'deal' proves he's unfit to serve as attorney general," Padilla added. "Congress must pass my legislation to permanently ban any payouts to J6ers."
Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.) described the deal to confirm Blanche as "insane corruption" that would do nothing to stop the president from looting the US treasury.
"Republican senators cave to Trump again," Beyer wrote. "They'll make his personal lawyer the attorney general without stopping Trump's 'license to steal' lifetime audit protection. Trump and his family will get millions of taxpayer dollars thanks to Republicans' failure."
Rep. Dan Goldman (D-NY) shredded Tillis and Cornyn for taking Blanche at his word that the slush fund was fully rescinded, and he predicted that the former Trump lawyer would try to bring it back if the president ordered him to do so.
"Blanche has demonstrated over and over that he is purely a vessel for Trump to punish his enemies and reward his 'allies,'" wrote Goldman. "The Capitol police who were beaten and assaulted during J6 can’t even get disability but Trump wants to give those who assaulted them millions of dollars—and Blanche will make sure that happens."
Lisa Gilbert, co-president of Public Citizen, similarly argued that there is nothing stopping Blanche from turning around after his confirmation hearing and reestablishing the $1.8 billion slush fund.
Gilbert further noted that Trump under the deal gets to "keep tax immunity for himself, his sons, and the Trump Organization, potentially saving the president millions in taxes owed to the American people."
Gilbert urged senators to reject Blanche's nomination when it comes up for a vote, or otherwise risk having the DOJ turned into a "Trump revenge agency."
"You're making a decision that people cannot vote by mail. That's unacceptable," said US Sen. Gary Peters.
Postmaster General David Steiner drew the ire of Democratic senators and voting rights advocates on Wednesday when he said that the US Postal Service would not deliver mail-in ballots in states that do not hand their voter files to the Trump administration.
During a Senate Homeland Security Committee hearing, Sen. Gary Peters (D-Mich.), the panels ranking member, asked Steiner if USPS would deliver ballots in a state whose government had refused the Trump administration's request for access to its absentee voter list.
"Under our proposed regulation, no," Steiner replied. "We would tell the state that we need the manifest."
Peters responded by accusing USPS of creating a rule that "coerces" states into handing their voter files to the federal government even though they are under no legal obligation to do so.
"You're making a decision that people cannot vote by mail," Peters said. "That's unacceptable."
PETERS: Yes or no, if a state refuses to turn their absentee voter list to the federal government, will the Postal Service still mail their ballots under this proposed rule?
POSTMASTER GENERAL STEINER: No.
PETERS: So the proposed rule basically coerces states to hand over their… pic.twitter.com/5bnJb5Atnr
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) June 24, 2026
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) also sparred with Steiner during the hearing, informing the postmaster general that USPS had absolutely no role to play in determining how states conduct their elections.
"You run the Postal Service, you deliver the mail," Blumenthal said. "You don't review ballots or registration. Nobody said you should... This proposed rule is bogus."
Blumenthal demanded Steiner commit to deliver all mail-in ballots to voters in his state regardless of whether it complied with the Trump administration's demands, but the postmaster general said he would not make such a commitment.
"Our proposed rule is subject to litigation," Steiner told him. "We'll see how that all turns out."
"Well, I guess we will see," Blumenthal replied, "but it will probably be in court."
The Founding Fathers didn’t envision USPS reviewing voting ballots or registration. Trump’s Postmaster General refuses to commit to deliver mail-in-ballots without fulfilling Trump’s new bogus, sham review. pic.twitter.com/V3jiBMyGOY
— Richard Blumenthal (@SenBlumenthal) June 24, 2026
Some observers reacted with shock to Steiner's willingness to go along with Trump's latest election-rigging scheme, which they said was patently unconstitutional.
"Yeah, that's illegal," said Aaron Reichlin-Melnick, senior fellow at the American Immigration Council. "The Post Office can’t refuse to deliver mail to try and get policy concessions."
"We have a Postmaster General who should not be in any position of trust or influence," commented political scientist Norman Ornstein, "a disgraceful traitor to American values."
Illinois Gov. JB Pritzker signaled his state would challenge the proposed USPS rule.
"Illinois expanded vote-by-mail because we believe voting should be easier, not harder," Pritzker wrote. "Now, Trump’s handpicked Postmaster General is threatening to withhold mail ballots unless states turn over voter rolls. That's not election security. It’s voter suppression."
Political scientist Robert E. Kelly argued that Trump's attack on mail-in voting was a "deeply malign gimmick which makes it so hard to accommodate MAGA within the US political order."
"No one thought to use the mail as a partisan weapon," Kelly wrote. "The laws and norms around mail are poorly known, because no one ever thought to try this gambit before. But now, because Trump insists on politicizing the bureaucracy, this whole thing will go to court just months before the election."
Too many congressional Democrats are demonstrating their own hypocrisy in claiming that they oppose the war while actively undermining efforts to end it.
Many of the criticisms being leveled against the Memorandum of Understanding between the United States and Iran—namely, that it is not that great a deal—are accurate and worthy of attention. But under the disastrous set of circumstances resulting from the US-Israeli war on Iran, it is probably the best deal that can be realistically hoped for, given that Iran clearly has the upper hand. Unfortunately, that has not stopped some Washington politicians, including many prominent Democrats, from attempting to undermine it.
Iran has suffered enormously in terms of damage to its military and civilian infrastructure and the killing of many in its clerical, political, and military leadership, among many other thousands of deaths. In response, the regime has demonstrated an effective new form of asymmetrical warfare, in which relatively cheap drones can continue to inflict an enormous amount of damage on US assets in the region, as well as on the military and civilian infrastructure of US allies, even when more than 90 percent of such projectiles are successfully intercepted via more costly technologies.
The United States cannot win this war against Iran.
The deal outlined in the Memorandum of Understanding is decidedly of greater benefit to Iran than the terms agreed upon in the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA)—an agreement primarily negotiated by the Obama Administration and signed by six other nations with the support of the United Nations and the European Union. That deal was unilaterally broken off by President Donald Trump during his first term.
Trump’s new Memorandum of Understanding with Iran calls for Iran’s enriched uranium to be blended down inside the country rather than removed to another location. In addition, as much as $24 billion in frozen Iranian assets will be released, although Trump has repeatedly criticized the JCPOA for unfreezing billions in Iranian assets. And, unlike the JCPOA, this deal lifts sanctions prior to Iran’s implementing the nuclear provisions.
The Trump Administration emphasizes that its agreement forces Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz and commits Iran to not developing a nuclear weapon. However, both of these were already the case prior to Trump’s launch of the war four months ago on February 28.
For Republicans who attacked President Barack Obama for the JCPOA to now defend Trump’s Memorandum of Understanding is beyond hypocrisy. But many Congressional Democrats are demonstrating their own hypocrisy in claiming that they oppose the war while actively undermining efforts to end it.
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, Democrat of New York, referred to the agreement as “the art of surrender.” Senator John Hickenlooper, Democrat of Colorado, deemed it “despicable.” Senator Cory Booker, Democrat of New Jersey, said it was a deal in which Iran gets all the benefits. Former Clinton Administration National Security Advisor Susan Rice dubbed it a “jaw-dropping, horrific surrender.” Senator Adam Schiff, Democrat of California, said it was “a thorough capitulation.” Representative Seth Moulton, Democrat of Massachusetts, similarly claimed it was “basically a surrender document.” And Senator Richard Blumenthal, Democrat of Connecticut, also called the agreement as an “unconditional surrender” by the United States, insisting it would be “dead on arrival in the Senate”—even though, since it is not a formal treaty, it does not require ratification or any other action on Capitol Hill.
Under international law, countries that engage in aggressive war are generally held liable for the damages inflicted upon the country they attack. The costs to Iranian society of the US-Israeli bombing has been estimated to be nearly $300 billion. The Memorandum of Understanding does not call for reparations, but it does make reference to a reconstruction fund in that amount, apparently led by Arab Gulf states; payments will likely be in the form of loans with a decent return on investment for those Gulf states. It is not US tax dollars that are being spent. It is not money that Trump is giving to Iran.
This has not stopped some Democratic leaders in Congress from claiming this is somehow a taxpayer-funded cash grant to the Iranian regime. Schumer insists the agreement would force the United States to “send Iran $300 billion when economic needs are severe here at home.” Senator Amy Klobuchar, Democrat of Minnesota, falsely claimed these funds could be used to “end homelessness, fund cancer research for forty years, and give every child free pre-K for over seven years. Instead, Trump is sending it to Iran.” Blumenthal even claimed that Iran would be able to spend the money on supporting Hezbollah and other extremist Iranian allies, and rebuild its nuclear program. However, the investments would more likely actually be directed towards specific civilian infrastructure development projects under the supervision of the donor countries and private investors.
Misrepresenting arms control agreements is a time-honored tactic used by militarists. During the Cold War, these agreements frequently prompted rightwing claims that arms control locked in Soviet nuclear superiority. Trump himself insisted that the JCPOA, rather than make it physically impossible for Iran to develop a weapon, would have enabled them to do the opposite and destroy Israel and attack the United States.
By falsely claiming that the United States would pay Iran $300 billion, Schumer (who also opposed the JCPOA) and other Democrats are essentially trying to mobilize popular opposition to the ending of the conflict.
The big question: What is the alternative?
A return to a war on Iran that brings retaliatory attacks on a half-dozen Middle Eastern nations? The continued devastating Israeli bombardment of Lebanon? The indefinite closure of the Strait of Hormuz and its disastrous global economic impact, particularly on families worldwide living under the poverty line?
Some Democrats recognize this reality. “There is no good way out of a bad war,” noted Senator Chris Van Hollen, Democrat of Maryland. “When you're in a hole, stop digging.” Similarly, Senator Chris Murphy, Democrat of Connecticut, observed, “It’s a disaster, but it’s probably a necessary disaster.”
But the Democratic politicians who are joining rightwing Republicans in claims of “surrender” are assisting in the creation of a climate that might indeed lead the hawkish Trump Administration to break off the current agreement and return to war.
In many respects, this is nothing new. Democrats played an important role in working to undermine Obama’s efforts to negotiate a nuclear agreement with Iran, in discouraging President Joe Biden from returning to the deal, and in promoting a war in Iran that Trump finally brought to fruition in recent months.
Those of us interested in peace and security, however, should not encourage these actions. It is easy to criticize the agreement as a means of underscoring the tragedy of this reckless and illegal war, and to further discredit Trump as we approach the midterm elections. We must resist the understandable temptation to forward the memes, cartoons, and late-night jokes critical of the deal on our personal listservs and social media.
Doing so simply reinforces the efforts by Republican hawks, rightwing Zionists, and others who seek perpetual war. The unfortunate reality is that the implementation of the Memorandum of Understanding is probably the best hope at this point to end—or at least suspend—this tragic conflict.
“Without recordings, we wouldn’t know the truth of what happened to Renee Nicole Good, Alex Pretti, Marimar Martinez, George Retes, and so, so many others,” said one of the bill's sponsors.
A pair of congressional Democrats on Monday introduced legislation that would protect the constitutional right to legally record federal agents and open the door to civil compensation for people whose rights have been violated.
Congressman Maxwell Frost of Florida and Sen. Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut introduced the Right to Record Act, which according to Frost's office, "establishes the right to sue individual law enforcement agents if they violate First Amendment rights, including the right to record, observe, or peacefully protest."
“The First Amendment defends the right to assemble, protest, and record government officials in public," Frost said in a statement.
No federal agent is above the Constitution. My bill, the Right to Record Act, with @blumenthal.senate.gov strengthens your First Amendment right to record, observe, and peacefully protest — and gives you the power to sue federal agents who violate those rights.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Maxwell Alejandro Frost (@frost.house.gov) June 8, 2026 at 2:24 PM
"That right has never been more important. In cases like the murders of Alex Pretti and Renee Good, officials and their allies tried to paint the victims as threats despite evidence showing otherwise,” the congressman said, referring to two people shot and killed during the Department of Homeland Security's (DHS) Operation Metro Surge anti-immigrant blitz in Minneapolis.
"Without firsthand recordings, those false narratives might have become the official story, which is why the Right to Record Act is so important," Frost added. "It would protect the public’s ability to expose the truth without fear, giving individuals a legal path forward if an officer does violate their constitutional rights.”
In the same statement, Blumenthal said that “over the last year, I’ve investigated dozens of cases of Americans brutalized by agents of their own government, and across the board, video footage corroborated their testimony—showing the world what they experienced and making sure that justice was served."
"Without recordings, we wouldn’t know the truth of what happened to Renee Nicole Good, Alex Pretti, Marimar Martinez, George Retes, and so, so many others," the senator continued.
Martinez, a US citizen, was shot five times by a US Customs and Border Protection agent last October in Chicago while going to donate clothing to her church. Officer body camera footage showed that DHS officials—who labeled Martinez a "domestic terrorist"—lied about events leading up to the shooting.
Retes, who is also a US citizen, is an Iraq War veteran who was violently arrested last July during an immigration raid on his job site and subsequently jailed for three days.
"The right to bear witness has never been more important," Blumenthal said in his statement Monday. "I’m proud to work with Congressman Frost on bicameral legislation that will strengthen the right to record, observe, and peacefully protest—creating real enforcement tools for the protections of the First Amendment that lay the foundation for our democracy.”
Recording federal law enforcement agents in public is protected First Amendment activity, as long as the recorder is not interfering with the officers' duties. Federal courts have repeatedly upheld this right.
"The right to observe and record law enforcement is fundamental to our democracy," Jenna Leventoff, senior policy counsel with the ACLU—which has endorsed the Right to Record Act—asserted Monday.
"We can't hold our government accountable if we can't see for ourselves what they're doing in our communities," she argued. "Observing and filming allows people to create an independent record, share information with their communities, and demand better from our government."
"Protesting for what we believe in is a core American value, and observing and filming government activity can drive the protest movements that spark change," Leventoff added. "All of these rights are squarely protected by the First Amendment, and we're hopeful that Congress will codify them into law by enacting the Right to Record Act."
The president and his family made billions off Trump meme coins while investors got fleeced.
The price to attend Saturday's second "VIP reception" for investors in President Donald Trump's meme coin has plunged nearly as much as the cryptocurrency itself, leaving investors bamboozled and bankrupt.
Meme coins are highly volatile cryptocurrencies inspired by internet memes, jokes, or cultural trends. While many thousands of meme coins are introduced daily, the overwhelming majority of them fail after a short period as influencer-driven hype and investor "FOMO"—fear of missing out—subside.
The president's $TRUMP meme coin debuted just before his January 2025 return to the White House. Its price soared by more than 50% after its website announced last April that the coin’s top 220 investors would be invited to a private gala dinner with the president. The watchdog Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) revealed that invitees included dozens of investors in crypto assets named after white supremacist and outright Nazi themes.
However, even then, $TRUMP was already down significantly from its high of over $75 just after its launch. On Friday, it was trading at less than $3, and the top-tier entry price to Saturday's gala at the president's Mar-a-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida is indicative of that precipitous plunge.
Tomorrow, President Trump will host an event for 297 $TRUMP memecoin holders at Mar-a-Lago. It’s the second time in less than a year that the president has offered special access to people who can afford to buy enough of his memecoin—and it’s somehow even worse than the first.🧵
— CREW (@citizensforethics.org) April 24, 2026 at 7:36 AM
According to the Financial Times, the 29 premier access attendees of Saturday's event held a median investment of $539,000. That's nearly 84% less than the $3.28 million median investment they had prior to last year's gala. Furthermore, the newspaper reported that many premier access winners have apparently liquidated their $TRUMP holdings since securing their VIP spots.
“Nobody likes it,” Morten Christensen, a crypto investor who went to last year's gala and plans on attending the Mar-a-Lago dinner, told Politico Thursday. “People are losing on the coin, and they are vocal. They are the people on Twitter like, ‘Fuck this coin’ or, ‘It’s a scam.’ And they’re right, basically.”
That's not stopping the gala organizers from touting what they're calling “THE MOST EXCLUSIVE CRYPTO & BUSINESS CONFERENCE IN THE WORLD!”
As Politico reported Thursday:
It is open to the top 297 $TRUMP investors, who will get the chance to hear from an eclectic lineup of speakers that includes several crypto executives, boxing legend Mike Tyson, motivational coach Tony Robbins, and Trump, who will speak during the event’s luncheon, according to promotional materials. He is expected to be in Washington later in the day for the White House Correspondents’ Dinner.
While $TRUMP investors may be losing big, Trump and his family have made billions of dollars in crypto profits, while the Trump family and the coin's creators raked in $320 million in trading fees, even as the coin's value tanked.
A small group of elite investors has likewise been spared severe losses, including insiders who bought up $MELANIA, First Lady Melania Trump's meme coin, prior to its launch, a practice known as "sniping" that netted them around $100 million, according to the Financial Times.
$MELANIA launched on the eve of Trump's second inauguration and soared to an all-time high of $13.73 on Inauguration Day. It's now trading at $0.12, a 99% dive. Investors subsequently sued $MELANIA's creators, alleging that it's part of a fraudulent "pump-and-dump" scheme in which they manipulated the launch of $MELANIA and other coins in order to enrich themselves while later investors got wiped out.
That's not the only lawsuit targeting the president's family over alleged crypto fraud. Billionaire investor Justin Sun is suing World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency firm co-founded by Trump and his sons, accusing the company of illegally blocking Sun from selling up to $1 billion worth of digital tokens. Sun said last year that he's the world's largest single holder of the president's meme coin.
Last year, US Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.), as well as Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), launched investigations into $TRUMP events.
“He’s normalized his corruption,” Blumenthal said of Trump during a Thursday interview, adding that the Mar-a-Lago gala is “simply another way to generate more money for himself, profiting directly from his office."
Trump—who once said he's "not a fan" of cryptocurrencies, "whose value is highly volatile and based on thin air"—has pushed crypto since returning to office, most notably in a January 2025 executive order calling for the establishment of a working group on digital assets to explore the possibility of creating a “national digit asset stockpile," a top crypto industry wish list item.
“It is literally cashing in on the presidency—creating a financial instrument so people can transfer money to the president’s family in connection with his office,” Campaign Legal Center executive director Adav Noti said last year.
Experts have warned prospective investors about the dangers associated with $TRUMP.
“Two exclusive promotional events offering access to the president created temporary price increases but did not reverse the long-term downward trend,” Marquette University finance professor emeritus David Krause wrote last month.
“With approximately 80% of the token supply controlled by Trump-affiliated entities and over $324 million in trading fees accruing to insiders, the token raises significant questions about the alignment of promotional activities with retail investor protection,” Krause added. “As political meme coins continue to emerge, the $TRUMP token may serve as a cautionary case for the risks of speculative assets tied to political figures.”
Looking forward to Saturday's Mar-a-Lago gathering—which Trump may not even attend, according to small print on the event's website—CREW said Wednesday that "like the first event, Trump will almost certainly host holders of alt-right and racist coins, foreign attendees—including those with potential ties to foreign governments—and people seeking favors."
"This weekend will provide a prime example of the level of corruption and profiteering that no other president would have even dreamt of engaging in, but Trump is comfortable doing so openly," the group added.
"At every turn, President Trump has sought to conceal the facts about his monstrous multimillion-dollar ballroom,” said Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
While the financing of President Donald Trump's planned $400 million White House ballroom has been shrouded in mystery for months, government watchdog Public Citizen has obtained important new information about the project's funding.
Public Citizen on Tuesday unveiled a copy of the funding agreement the Trump administration has used for the ballroom project after months of legal wrangling that forced the group to file a lawsuit to compel enforcement of a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request it made last year.
As summarized by The Washington Post, the ballroom contract's provisions "allow wealthy donors with business before the federal government to contribute anonymously to a sitting president’s pet project, while exempting the White House from key conflict of interest safeguards and limiting scrutiny by Congress and the public."
While dozens of big-name corporate donors—including Amazon, Apple, Lockheed Martin, Google, Altria, and Union Pacific Railroad—have been public about their donations to the project, the fact that some donors can choose to remain anonymous is raising serious concerns among ethics experts.
Charles Tiefer, a retired law professor at the University of Baltimore with a long history of scrutinizing government contracts, told the Post that the contract's anonymity provisions could give the Trump administration an escape hatch from future congressional scrutiny.
"If Congress knocks on the door," Tiefer said, "the White House is going to slam it shut and say, ‘You’re not allowed to know these donors.'"
This means that there is no way to know whether these donors have business before the government, and no way to know if they expect to get something in return for their donations.
Kathleen Clark, a government ethics lawyer and law professor at Washington University in St. Louis, told the Post that the contract's very narrow scope of reviewing for conflicts of interest among donors renders it "nothing more than a sham."
Jon Golinger, democracy advocate for Public Citizen, said the key takeaway from the newly unearthed documents is that "anonymous donations are the heart of this agreement."
"The questions this raises are, of the hundreds of millions being funneled in secret, who are these anonymous donors, and what are they hiding?" Golinger added. "The American people deserve answers, and we’ll keep fighting until they get them."
Wendy Liu, Public Citizen attorney and lead counsel on the lawsuit to obtain the contract, said the administration's initial refusal to comply with a FOIA request was "flatly unlawful," and "the American people are entitled to transparency over this multimillion-dollar project, and this win gets us a bit closer to knowing the truth."
Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) blasted the Trump administration's efforts to hide the contract in a statement given to the Post.
“At every turn, President Trump has sought to conceal the facts about his monstrous multimillion-dollar ballroom,” Blumenthal said. “His administration has kept the contract under wraps, the identities of big dollar donors secret, and the American people in the dark about what big corporations have to gain by funding this boondoggle.”
"The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform, and the potential for further escalation."
Democratic US senators left a classified Tuesday briefing with senior defense and intelligence officials with serious concerns that President Donald Trump will order a ground invasion of Iran in what would be a perilous escalation of his illegal and unprovoked war of choice.
White House officials—including Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Secretary of State Marco Rubio—and Pentagon brass have held a series of closed-door meetings with congressional lawmakers since the US and Israel launched their war on Iran late last month.
While Democratic lawmakers have said that the classified status of these briefings prevents them from disclosing key information about the administration's war plans, Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) emerged from Tuesday's meeting with a warning to reporters that “we seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives" outlined during the briefing.
Blumenthal after getting briefed on Iran: "We seem to be on a path toward deploying American troops on the ground in Iran to accomplish any of the potential objectives here. There's also the specter of active Russian aid to Iran putting in danger American lives ... China also may be assisting Iran"
[image or embed]
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar.com) March 10, 2026 at 9:42 AM
“I am left with more questions than answers, especially about the cost of the war,” Blumenthal said. “My questions have been unanswered, and I will demand answers because the American people deserve to know."
"The American people deserve to know much more than this administration has told them about the cost of the war, the danger to our sons and daughters in uniform, and the potential for further escalation," he added.
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) said after attending the briefing, "Here we are well into the second week, and it is still the case that the Trump administration cannot explain the reasons that we entered this war, the goals we're trying to accomplish, and the methods for doing that."
Sen. Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.) said that what she heard during the briefing "is not just concerning, it is disturbing."
"I'm not sure what the endgame is or what their plans are," Rosen said of the administration, adding that Trump has "not shown us any plans for what he wants to do for the day after, let's put it that way. That's as much as I can say."
Democratic lawmakers voiced similar concerns over a possible ground war following a March 3 classified briefing.
Trump and senior administration officials have not ruled out a ground invasion of Iran.
“I don’t have the yips with respect to boots on the ground,” Trump told the New York Post last week. “Like every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said during a Sunday interview on Fox News that Trump has not ruled out either a ground invasion or a draft, although many experts say the latter option is highly unlikely.
Here's the Karoline Leavitt interview people are talking about. Maria Bartiromo asks if Trump might send ground troops into Iran, because "mothers are worried" about a draft. Leavitt replies that ground troops aren't in the current plan, but Trump won't rule them out. No mention of the draft.
[image or embed]
— Joshua J. Friedman (@joshuajfriedman.com) March 8, 2026 at 4:09 PM
Trump has also given mixed signals about the planned duration of the war, declaring Monday that the campaign is "very complete, pretty much" before stating that US forces “will not relent until the enemy is totally and decisively defeated.”
The president and his senior Cabinet officials have also waffled when attempting to explain the war's objectives, alternately suggesting that the goal of the campaign is and is not regime change, and shifting the narrative from eliminating Iran's nonexistent nuclear weapons program to destroying its ballistic missile arsenal.
Tuesday's briefing came on a day that Hegseth said would be the "most intense day of strikes inside Iran" during the 10-day war.
This, after a wave of US and Israeli airstrikes across Iran left at least scores dead on Monday, including 40 people massacred while sheltering in apartment blocks in eastern Tehran.
Hundreds of civilians have been killed by US and Israeli bombing in Iran and Israeli strikes on Lebanon, where more than 700,000 people have been forcibly displaced amid relentless airstrikes.
In what's being called "one of the deadliest school massacres in modern history," around 175 people, mostly schoolchildren, were killed on February 28 by what US intelligence said is a likely Tomahawk missile strike in Minab. Fragments from the missile marked with Pentagon contract information, the names of US weapons companies, and a "Made in USA" stamp provided the latest evidence that the attack was carried out by the US—although Trump has blamed the strike on Iran.
The Pentagon said that seven US troops have been killed and 140 others wounded by Iranian counterstrikes, which have also targeted Gulf monarchies allied with the United States, killing at least 15 people.
Noting that Trump—"who campaigned as the 'peace president'—led the United States into war with Iran with no clear objectives and no authorization from Congress," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY), Senate Armed Services Committee Ranking Member Jack Reed (D-RI), and Senate Foreign Relations Committee Ranking Member Jeanne Shaheen (D-NH) sent a letter to Trump on Tuesday demanding that administration leaders "appear before Congress and under oath in public hearings to provide answers" about the war.
The senators wrote that Trump's "ever-shifting goals and explanations suggest there is no clear plan."
"Further, this raises the risk of mission creep which, based on history, would likely lead to more US casualties and escalating costs for taxpayers," the lawmakers added. "The American people—including our men and women in uniform—deserve clear answers about the war and accountability from your administration."
The Senate and House of Representatives—both controlled by Republicans—have voted down proposed resolutions meant to prevent Trump from waging war without congressional authorization, as required by the War Powers Act.
A Quinnipiac University poll published Monday revealed that 74% of respondents—including 95% of Democrats, 75% of Independents, and 52% of Republicans—oppose a US ground invasion of Iran. A slim majority of respondents are against the overall war in Iran, which 55% of those surveyed said did not pose any "imminent threat" to the United States prior to the US-Israeli attack.
The survey also found that 62% of respondents "think the Trump administration has not provided a clear explanation of the reasons behind the United States' military action against Iran."
"I am more fearful than ever, after this briefing, that we may be putting boots on the ground," said Sen. Richard Blumenthal.
Senate Democrats said after receiving a classified briefing from the Trump administration on Tuesday that they're increasingly concerned about the US-Israeli war on Iran dragging on "forever"—and involving American troops in a ground invasion.
"I am more fearful than ever, after this briefing, that we may be putting boots on the ground," Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) told reporters, criticizing the Trump administration for not providing the American public with information that was given to senators behind closed doors.
Blumenthal's warning came a day after President Donald Trump publicly declined to rule out a ground invasion of Iran, saying he doesn't "have the yips with respect to boots on the ground."
"Every president says, ‘There will be no boots on the ground.’ I don’t say it," Trump told the New York Post. The Trump administration's letter formally notifying Congress of the initial attacks on Iran—sent days after the war began—said "no United States ground forces were used in these strikes."
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) emerged from Tuesday's briefing—which included Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, CIA Director John Ratcliffe, and other top officials—"more convinced" that the war on Iran "is going to be open-ended and forever."
"This feels like a multitrillion-dollar open-ended conflict with a very confusing and constantly shifting set of goals," said Murphy. "They told us in that room that there are going to be more Americans that are going to die."
"We shouldn't be voting to proceed to other pieces of legislation until we get a debate on this deeply unpopular, immoral, and illegal war with Iran," Murphy added.
Here's what I believe: no more business as usual in the Senate. We shouldn't be voting to proceed to normal legislation until Republicans schedule a debate and a vote and on a declaration of war against Iran. Let's see if Trump has the votes to authorize war. I bet he doesn't. pic.twitter.com/KIrkMD54yQ
— Chris Murphy 🟧 (@ChrisMurphyCT) March 4, 2026
Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) addressed her concerns to the American public, saying in a video posted to social media that "it is so much worse than you thought."
"You are right to be worried," said Warren. "The Trump administration has no plan in Iran. This illegal war is based on lies, and it was launched without any imminent threat to our nation. Donald Trump still hasn't given a single clear reason for this war, and he seems to have no plan for how to end it, either."
I just left a classified briefing with the Trump Administration about the war in Iran.
I was worried before, but I’m more worried now. pic.twitter.com/HoSWLVWrR8
— Elizabeth Warren (@SenWarren) March 3, 2026
The briefing came after the Pentagon announced it would be sending additional troops to the Middle East as the American death toll rose to six—and the Iranian death toll neared 800 and counting.
The Trump administration, which has neither sought nor received congressional authorization for military action in Iran, has repeatedly declined to provide a clear timeline or objective for the attacks and offered muddled justifications for why they were purportedly necessary.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters after Tuesday's briefings that the administration aims to "systematically" dismantle Iran's ballistic missile program, "destroy their ability to sponsor terrorism," and "destroy their Navy"—goals that go well beyond protecting the United States from a supposedly imminent threat.
On Wednesday, the Republican-controlled Senate plans to begin voting on a war powers resolution aimed at forcing the president to end military operations in Iran.
"Every senator will have to go on the record to declare whether it is in our best interest to send our sons and daughters into conflict against Iran," said Sen. Tim Kaine (D-Va.), the measure's lead sponsor. "I pray that my colleagues will vote to end this dangerous and unnecessary war that has already resulted in the loss of six servicemembers and injured others. We owe it to those in uniform, their families, and all Americans to not make the same mistakes that we made in Iraq and Afghanistan.”