US House of Representatives has launched an investigation into a $500 million investment in World Liberty Financial (WLFI), a cryptocurrency venture linked to President Donald Trump’s family.
The probe, led by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA), Ranking Member of the House Select Committee on the Strategic Competition Between the United States and the Chinese Communist Party, focuses on a reported secret deal where an entity controlled by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan (UAE National Security Advisor and a powerful royal family member, often called the “spy sheikh”) acquired a 49% stake in WLFI for $500 million.
The agreement was reportedly signed just days before Trump’s January 2025 inauguration, with significant funds around $187 million directed to Trump family entities and additional amounts to affiliates of Steve Witkoff (Trump’s special envoy to the Middle East and co-founder partner in the venture).
Potential conflicts of interest and violations of the US Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, as a foreign government-linked investment benefited the president’s family shortly before policy changes. Months after the investment, the Trump administration approved exports of advanced US AI chips previously restricted under Biden-era rules due to risks of diversion to China to the UAE, including entities tied to Sheikh Tahnoon (e.g., his AI firm G42).
Broader entanglements, such as WLFI’s USD1 stablecoin facilitating a $2 billion investment into Binance founded by Changpeng Zhao, recently pardoned by Trump. Khanna sent a formal letter to WLFI co-founder Zach Witkoff demanding records on ownership, payments, governance, and related transactions, with a response deadline of March 1, 2026.
Register for Tekedia Mini-MBA edition 19 (Feb 9 – May 2, 2026).
Register for Tekedia AI in Business Masterclass.
Join Tekedia Capital Syndicate and co-invest in great global startups.
Register for Tekedia AI Lab.
He also notified the US Attorney in Delaware where one involved Emirati entity is domiciled and highlighted risks to US competitiveness with China. The story broke prominently via a Wall Street Journal investigation late January 2026, with confirmations from WLFI spokespeople that Trump himself was not directly involved in the transaction and has no current role in the company.
Democrats, including figures like Sen. Chris Murphy and Sen. Elizabeth Warren, have called it potential “corruption, plain and simple,” while criticizing the lack of broader political fallout. Some reports note impacts on Trump-linked crypto assets.
This is a congressional inquiry not a full DOJ criminal probe at this stage, centered on transparency, ethics, and policy influence rather than a broad “US government” criminal launch. No final conclusions have been reached, and the White House/allies have denied wrongdoing or direct links to policy decisions.
The Foreign Emoluments Clause is a key anti-corruption provision in the United States Constitution, found in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8. No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
This clause has two main parts:The first prohibits the U.S. federal government from granting any titles of nobility. The second (the core “Foreign Emoluments Clause”) prohibits federal officeholders from accepting any present (gift), emolument (profit, gain, advantage, or benefit), office, or title from a foreign government referred to as “any King, Prince, or foreign State” unless Congress explicitly consents.
The framers of the Constitution included this clause to protect the young republic from foreign corruption and undue influence. Drawing from experiences under British rule and concerns during the Articles of Confederation era, they sought to ensure that U.S. officials’ loyalties remained undivided and aligned solely with American interests.
The provision acts as a prophylactic (preventive) rule against bribery, foreign sway over policy decisions, or officials being “bought” by external powers. It was modeled on a similar (but broader) rule in the Articles of Confederation, with the Constitution adding the requirement for congressional consent as a potential exception mechanism.
Who it applies to: It covers any “Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States].” Legal scholars and historical consensus broadly interpret this to include the President (as an elected officeholder), as well as appointed federal officials, diplomats, and others in positions of federal authority.
There has been some academic debate about whether it strictly excludes the president, but the prevailing view and practice—including Department of Justice opinions—hold that it applies to the presidency. What counts as an “emolument”: The term is interpreted broadly as any profit, gain, advantage, benefit, or compensation—monetary or non-monetary—from a foreign government or its agents.
This can include direct payments, business profits tied to foreign government patronage gifts, salaries, or favorable deals. Courts and legal analyses from the Office of Legal Counsel have emphasized a wide scope to prevent even indirect influence.
Foreign State: This includes not just monarchies but any sovereign foreign government, including modern states and entities closely tied to them. The only way to avoid a violation is explicit congressional approval. Without it, acceptance is barred.
The clause is rarely litigated directly due to challenges like standing in court, but it has been invoked in ethics opinions, congressional oversight, and lawsuits (notably during the first Trump presidency over business dealings with foreign governments).
Violations are considered constitutional breaches rather than criminal offenses per se, though related conduct could implicate other laws. In recent contexts—like reported foreign investments in ventures linked to U.S. officials or their families—the clause raises questions about potential conflicts, influence on policy, and the need for transparency or divestment.
In essence, the Foreign Emoluments Clause serves as one of the Constitution’s oldest safeguards against foreign corruption, aiming to keep U.S. officials free from external financial pressures that could compromise national interests.