J. Benjamin Greenberg, a shareholder in Circle Internet Financial, filed a lawsuit on Thursday in the US District Court for the District of Columbia against President Donald Trump, his family’s crypto company World Liberty Financial, affiliate entities, and US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff. The legal action centers on allegations that these parties caused financial harm to Circle by facilitating a $2 billion investment from Abu Dhabi entity MGX into cryptocurrency exchange Binance using the USD1 stablecoin.
Greenberg alleges that this transaction created a pathway for foreign governments to funnel money through the Trump family’s crypto venture, thereby diverting business away from Circle’s USDC stablecoin. The complaint cites reporting from February by The Wall Street Journal regarding another investment vehicle backed by Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan agreeing to purchase a 49% stake in World Liberty for $500 million. Greenberg, who holds 10,000 ordinary shares of Circle, petitioned the court to declare that Trump violated the US Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause and to issue injunctions preventing further similar financial interests without Congressional consent.
Circle stated it did not initiate or authorize the filing, while representatives for World Liberty and the White House did not respond to requests for comment. The lawsuit occurs amid broader scrutiny of Trump’s crypto ventures, which reportedly netted him $1.4 billion in 2025 but cost investors approximately $4.7 billion, according to Public Citizen.
This litigation highlights the complex intersection of personal political power and decentralized finance infrastructure, specifically challenging whether state-backed capital flows constitute prohibited emoluments when routed through private stablecoins. By alleging that the USD1 stablecoin served as a conduit for foreign government funds to benefit Binance at Circle's expense, the plaintiff frames regulatory compliance issues as direct competitive harms. This approach tests the boundaries of constitutional law within the rapidly evolving crypto sector, where traditional definitions of 'business' and 'government interest' are increasingly blurred by tokenized assets.
The case underscores significant operational and reputational risks for stablecoin issuers operating alongside politically connected competitors. If courts accept the premise that accepting foreign government investments via a specific blockchain asset creates an unfair market advantage, it could set a precedent requiring stricter segregation between political entities and commercial crypto ventures. Investors and regulators will likely monitor whether such lawsuits can effectively constrain the use of state-linked capital in private digital asset markets, potentially reshaping how institutional adoption interacts with geopolitical influence.
