Circle Shareholder Sues Trump Over UAE-Linked World Liberty Financial Deals
Key Takeaways
- •A longtime Circle shareholder filed a lawsuit Thursday against President Trump, World Liberty Financial, and affiliates in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, centering on the Foreign Emoluments Clause.
- •The complaint focuses on two UAE-linked transactions: a $500 million sale of a 49% World Liberty stake to an entity tied to Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan and a $2 billion USD1 stablecoin purchase by Abu Dhabi's MGX fund.
- •The plaintiff claims the deals gave World Liberty an unfair competitive edge, costing Circle an estimated $70 million to $82 million annually, though the figure has not been tested in court.
- •The suit also names US Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and seeks compensatory damages, punitive damages, and declarations that constitutional violations occurred.
- •Defendants have not yet substantially responded in court, and motions to dismiss addressing standing and Trump's official-capacity status are expected before the merits are argued.

A longtime shareholder of Circle has filed a lawsuit against President Donald Trump, claiming that two UAE-linked deals involving his family's crypto venture violated the US Constitution and cost the stablecoin issuer real money. According to the plaintiff, the arrangements steered stablecoin business away from Circle's USDC at an estimated annual cost of $70 million to $82 million.
The suit was filed Thursday. It targets the President and World Liberty Financial, and it centers on the Foreign Emoluments Clause.
What the lawsuit alleges
The case was filed in the US District Court for the District of Columbia. Trump is named in his official capacity, alongside World Liberty Financial LLC and its affiliates. The complaint also reaches Steve Witkoff, the US Special Envoy to the Middle East.
Two transactions sit at the heart of the case. The first is a $500 million sale of a 49% stake in World Liberty to an entity associated with Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The second came later: Abu Dhabi's MGX fund made a $2 billion purchase of World Liberty's USD1 stablecoin.
The plaintiff's core argument is a competitive one. According to the complaint, the deals handed World Liberty's stablecoin operation an unfair edge over rivals, particularly in access to capital, leaving Circle's USDC at a disadvantage.
The complaint seeks both compensatory damages and punitive damages. It also asks the court to issue declarations that the alleged constitutional violations took place.
The Emoluments Clause, briefly
The Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits federal officeholders from accepting payments or benefits from foreign governments unless Congress consents. The lawsuit argues that money tied to Abu Dhabi flowing into a Trump family business fits that description.
The plaintiff is a shareholder in a direct commercial rival, and the complaint ties the alleged violation to a specific balance sheet. The estimated $70 million to $82 million in yearly losses is the plaintiff's figure. It has not been tested in court.
Background: a family business in a crowded market
World Liberty Financial was co-founded in 2024 by Trump and his sons. Its USD1 stablecoin competes head-to-head with Circle's USDC, the more established dollar-pegged token of the two.
Stablecoins are crypto tokens designed to hold a steady value, usually one US dollar. Issuers earn money largely on the reserves backing those tokens. More tokens in circulation means more reserves, and more reserves mean more income. A single $2 billion purchase is therefore a meaningful prize in this business.
Trump's reported earnings from crypto ventures exceeded $1.4 billion in 2025, according to his financial disclosure. World Liberty in particular has attracted significant foreign investment.
What this means
For now, everything in the complaint remains an allegation. The case has not gone to trial, and the defendants have not yet substantially responded in court. Motions to dismiss are expected before the merits are argued, likely beginning with questions of standing and the President's official-capacity status.