ℹ️ Informational only. This site aggregates public news and does not provide legal or immigration advice. Always verify with USCIS.gov or travel.state.gov. Full disclaimer →
New York Times – Politics
nytimes.com
Summary
Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota has been a frequent target of the Trump White House, especially over immigration.
Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota has been a frequent target of the Trump White House, especially over immigration.
Read the full article
Published by New York Times – Politics on nytimes.com
President Donald Trump is officially a crypto billionaire, with proceeds from his memecoin and family crypto company accounting for the bulk of his digital assets fortune. But the commander-in–chief has also shown an appetite for blockchain-related stocks and more exotic cryptocurrencies, according to a filing from the Office of Government Ethics released on Tuesday. Trump’s business entities generated more than $635 million in royalty income from his memecoin and almost $600 million through World Liberty Financial—a crypto company he cofounded with his three sons, longtime business associate Steve Witkoff, and Witkoff’s two sons. And the president pocketed nearly $197 million through DT Marks SC, a company that owns 38.5% percent of Stablecoin Holdco, a Miami-based stablecoin venture. Trump also has exposure to more niche digital assets through his crypto businesses. The entity connected to World Liberty Financial received more than $33 million in annual income from Bitcoin and over $150 million from Ethereum over the course of 2025, plus about $1.8 million from staked Ethereum. Through another company named DT Marks Defi, the president also earned more than $5 million across several altcoins, including LINK, AAVE, ENA, MOVE, and ONDO, and over $56 million from the stablecoin USDC. The president’s financial disclosure did not clearly specify how these crypto positions generated income. “Neither the President nor his family has ever engaged—or will ever engage—in conflicts of interest,” Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, told Fortune in a statement. A January Wall Street Journal investigation revealed that the Trump family secretly sold a 49% stake in World Liberty Financial to Aryam Investment 1, a company backed by Abu Dhabi royal Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, who serves as the United Arab Emirates’ national security adviser. Critics argue the current draft lacks adequate ethics safeguards. “The crypto legislation heading to the Senate floor must prevent the President, Vice President, senior administration officials, members of Congress, and their families from profiting off the crypto industry,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren in a statement on Tuesday.
The United States Supreme Court’s decision to lift limits on how much political parties can spend in coordination with a candidate will provide greater flexibility for political fundraising. The court on Tuesday ruled in the Federal Election Commission (FEC) v The National Republican Senatorial Committee (NRSC) case, which overturned a more than 50-year-old federa l election law that limited coordinated spending efforts between political parties and their candidates. Unlike super political action committees (super PACs), which are prohibited from coordinating directly with campaigns and instead spend independently on advertisements supporting or opposing candidates or ballot initiatives, political parties can coordinate directly with candidates’ campaigns. Because of that coordination, spending by political parties has historically been subject to federal campaign spending limits. The challenge was brought by party committees representing two Republican candidates— then-Representative Steve Chabot of Ohio and then-Senate candidate JD Vance. “This decision, as with its other campaign finance decisions since Citizens United, will inevitably render the government more responsive to special interests and indifferent to the demands of the American people,” Donald Sherman, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, a Washington, DC-based watchdog group, said in a statement. The Republican committees then appealed the ruling to the US Supreme Court. The Supreme Court then allowed the law’s supporters to intervene and defend it in the government’s place. For Senate candidates, restrictions were as low as $127,000 for some races and as much as $3.9m for races in more populous states. Senate Democrats slammed the court’s decision, saying it is a “win for billionaire donors and special interests who want more influence over the GOP agenda and an invitation for corruption”, in a statement. But experts believe that combined, these changes could incentivise politicians even more to cater to special interests. “Yet again, the Supreme Court ignored the real-world impacts of its decision to grant high-dollar donors greater influence over our democracy,” Sherman added.
This term, the US supreme court handed down decisions on issues ranging from voting rights to immigration and birthright citizenship, reshaping life for millions of people. Kai Wright speaks with Elie Mystal, justice correspondent for the Nation, about how the court got all its power in the first place, and why Mystal thinks court reforms to reign in that power aren’t just constitutional – they’re necessary. Continue reading...
