Circle Shareholder Sues Trump Over Crypto Deals
The suit in Washington combines allegations of improper benefits from the Emirates with a claimed competitive harm. Whether the shareholder may act on Circle's behalf is still open.
A shareholder of stablecoin issuer Circle has sued US President Donald Trump and several companies linked to World Liberty Financial. The filing, submitted on 22 October 2026 to the federal court for the District of Columbia, alleges that they obtained improper benefits through dealings connected with the United Arab Emirates and thereby harmed Circle.
The plaintiff is J. Benjamin Greenberg. He wants to act on Circle's behalf, not merely claim a personal investment loss. The case number is 1:26-cv-03686. The filing itself is confirmed; the alleged constitutional and competition violations are therefore not established by any court. Whether this manner of proceeding is admissible also remains to be examined.
Two transactions, different payment routes
The complaint first describes the agreed sale of a 49 per cent stake in the crypto business for 500 million dollars. According to the plaintiff, the money comes from an investment vehicle backed by a member of the Emirati ruling family. Parts of the proceeds allegedly flowed to Trump after he took office.
Second, Greenberg objects to the deployment of two billion dollars in USD1, the stablecoin of the World Liberty business, for an investment by the Emirati fund MGX in Binance. His thesis: political connections diverted business to a competitor that would otherwise have benefited Circle and its stablecoin USDC.
These are the plaintiffs' allegations. In particular, the claimed origin of the state benefits, their attribution to Trump and the alleged lost revenue must be substantiated. Two billion dollars of transaction volume is not the same as two billion dollars of personal profit for the president.
Why the reserves are decisive
Stablecoins are meant to peg their value to a reference currency. For USD1 that reference is the US dollar. Reserve assets are held to back it. What matters economically is not only the tokens issued but also the income those reserves can generate.
World Liberty states on its own information page that BitGo and affiliated World Liberty companies are entitled under their agreements to interest from the USD1 reserves. The company also discloses there an indirect economic interest held by Trump and certain family members. These corporate disclosures explain the business model; they do not in themselves prove any legal violation.
That is precisely why three levels must be kept apart: the face value of stablecoins issued, the company's revenue, and the share that accrues to a beneficial owner. The last cannot simply be read off the first.
A shareholder is not the company's management
Greenberg states in the complaint that he holds 10,000 Circle shares. He brings what is known as a derivative action: an attempt by a shareholder to enforce a claim belonging to the company when the company itself does not act. Circle is formally named as a nominal defendant; according to the filing, no claims are brought against it.
US civil procedure Rule 23.1 requires, among other things, that a plaintiff fairly and adequately represent the interests of similarly situated shareholders. He must set out concretely which steps he took with the board of directors, or why he refrained from doing so. Greenberg considers such a demand on Circle's board futile. Whether that reasoning suffices is not the plaintiff's decision but a procedural question for the court.
The monetary remedies sought also have different recipients. According to the complaint, the disgorgement sought is to go to the US Treasury or as the court orders. In addition, Greenberg seeks damages in favour of Circle. A successful shareholder suit would therefore not be the same as a direct payout of the entire contested sum to him or to other individual investors.
The docket status visible on CourtListener as of 22 October does not yet contain a response to the complaint. The archive does, however, note that its entries are not necessarily complete or up to date. No admission, and no position of the defendants on the suit, can be inferred from this gap.
The constitutional question and the investor question are not the same
The complaint relies on the Foreign Emoluments Clause. The constitutional text prohibits covered officeholders from accepting certain benefits from foreign states without the consent of Congress. Greenberg seeks, among other things, injunctions, disclosure of payment flows and disgorgement of contested revenue from the private companies. What is sought is not what has been granted.
For Switzerland this does not imply an automatic ban on USD1 or USDC. The Swiss National Bank still describes stablecoins as a niche phenomenon in the country in its 2026 Financial Stability Report, but stresses the importance of international coordination. The case shows why reserve quality and conflicts of interest must be assessed separately: a fully backed token does not yet answer the question of whom its business benefits and under what legal conditions.
Sources
- Original complaint: Greenberg v. Trump, 1:26-cv-03686, document 1 of 22 October 2026
- Case docket: Greenberg v. Trump, federal court for the District of Columbia
- US National Archives: Constitution, Article I, Section 9, Clause 8
- US Courts: Current Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
- Cornell Legal Information Institute: wording of Rule 23.1
- World Liberty Financial: USD1 reserve reports and economic disclosures
- Swiss National Bank: Financial Stability Report 2026
- Bloomberg: report on the newly filed complaint
