Anthony Scaramucci said that the Trump family’s crypto ventures create “pathways” to corruption and disrupt policymaking, referring to the TRUMP token, USD1, and World Liberty Financial. This isn’t the first—and likely not the last—time questions have been raised about Donald Trump’s influence on crypto, especially amid ongoing concerns over conflicts of interest.
More on Anthony Scaramucci’s Remarks About Trump
SkyBridge Capital founder and former White House Communications Director Anthony Scaramucci stated at the FT Digital Asset Summit that the Trump family’s involvement in crypto businesses is a “distraction” and an obstacle to developing bipartisan policy. And to be fair, that’s a rather soft framing—his actual words were:
“Let’s give them all the benefit of the doubt. But I do think that there’s pathways for some level of corruption, potential bribery and ‘sinistership,’ if you will. And I think we would just want people not to have those pathways, or to take that completely off the table.”
He wasn’t only addressing the current situation or recent questionable initiatives—Scaramucci made his stance clear on how this affects the broader legislative process:
“There has to be a bipartisan commitment. I don’t think the President signing a strategic Bitcoin reserve through executive order was the answer for the United States.”
He added:
“I think we want there to be a bipartisan commitment and no debate about what should be in the reserve. There’s no debate in the Congress about whether or not we should have rare earth minerals or oil in our strategic reserve.”
Overall, he emphasized that assets like stablecoins—which could potentially become part of a country’s economic foundation—should not be closely tied to a private individual:
“We came close to getting a stablecoin bill, but Trump has been so outrageously brazen with his ownership of a crypto company, a stablecoin. Enriching himself and his family, coaxing investors by bringing them to the White House. It’s just too much.”
Conclusion
There’s clearly room for opposing views here. Some might see this as strong but justified criticism that highlighted clear-cut conflict of interest at every turn. Some, on the contrary, will argue that this is greatly overstated and the criticism is contrived, citing similar examples that are not criticized as much because the people involved are not as bold.
