Former President Donald Trump hosted a high-dollar dinner with cryptocurrency investors—an event the White House described as private—despite the prominent use of the presidential seal, according to social media posts from attendees, including Chinese billionaire Justin Sun.
The May 22 dinner, promoted by Trump’s official @GetTrumpMemes account on May 5, was billed as an exclusive gathering for top holders of $TRUMP, a meme coin tied to the former president. Attendees reportedly invested millions in the cryptocurrency or contributed over $1 million each to Trump’s campaign funds.
Sun, listed by Forbes with a net worth of $8.5 billion, posted before the event: “As the top holder of $TRUMP, I’m excited to connect with everyone, talk crypto, and discuss the future of our industry.” A follow-up photo showed Trump speaking at a podium bearing the presidential seal.
Ethics Concerns and Protests
Ethics watchdogs criticized the event, where seats allegedly required purchasing $148 million worth of $TRUMP tokens, according to crypto intelligence firm Inca Digital. Attendees included former NBA star Lamar Odom and other high-profile investors.
Outside Trump National Golf Club in Sterling, Virginia, around 100 protesters held signs reading “Stop Crypto Corruption” and “Release the guest list.”
“This is one of the most blatant and appalling instances of selling access to the presidency I’ve ever seen,” said Donald Sherman of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington.
SEC Scrutiny and White House Response
Justin Sun and his companies (Tron Foundation, BitTorrent Foundation, and Rainberry) face an ongoing SEC lawsuit filed in March 2023. However, under the Trump administration, the SEC sought a pause in the case in February to explore a settlement.
White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the dinner, stating it was a private event attended by Trump in his personal capacity.
“The president is abiding by all conflict of interest laws,” Leavitt said, dismissing ethical concerns. “The American public believes it’s absurd to insinuate that this president is profiting from his office.”
Critics, however, argue the event blurred the lines between personal financial interests and political influence.
