A recent investigation has shed light on the Trump family’s controversial cryptocurrency dealings with the United Arab Emirates (UAE), intertwining high-profile investments with significant diplomatic decisions. Central to the report is World Liberty Financial, a crypto and decentralized finance firm founded in 2024 by members of the Trump family and business ally Steve Witkoff. The Trump family retains a controlling stake in the company, earning substantial ongoing profits from the sale of digital tokens and stablecoins.

In May, UAE’s Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, a key figure in both business and government circles, invested $2 billion into World Liberty Financial. Shortly after, the White House granted the UAE unprecedented access to thousands of cutting-edge artificial intelligence chips, a move that stirred concerns about national security and U.S. policy priorities. Although the administration has denied any link between the investment and the chipset agreement, ethics experts argue that such back-to-back deals undermine longstanding norms meant to prevent conflicts of interest among senior officials and their families.

The controversy deepened as reports revealed that Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East envoy and a principal in the crypto venture, actively promoted the chip deal while benefiting from the UAE’s investment in World Liberty. Despite promises of divestment, records show Witkoff maintained a financial interest in World Liberty months after the investment, raising further questions about personal gain versus public responsibility.

World Liberty Financial quickly parlayed this influx of capital into prominent expansion moves, including a partnership with Pakistan’s Crypto Council to explore digital asset opportunities and blockchain-based financial projects. These deals have catapulted World Liberty Financial into a leading global position in the crypto industry, with the Trump family profiting handsomely.

The saga illustrates a complex web of business, diplomacy, and ethical scrutiny at the highest level of government—a case that has sparked debate over how closely private financial interests should intersect with core policy decisions.