Key points
- 63pc say President’s family’s crypto profits were inappropriate
- 69pc say business interests influence Trump’s decisions
- Half of Republicans share concerns over business influence
WASHINGTON: A majority of Americans believe President Donald Trump and his family have inappropriately profited from cryptocurrency since his return to the White House, and that his private business interests influence presidential decisions.
According to an Ipsos poll, 63 per cent of respondents considered it inappropriate for Trump and his family to profit from cryptocurrency ventures. The survey compared this majority with 32 per cent who said the gains were appropriate.
Among Republicans, however, about seven in 10 viewed the deals as appropriate, compared with roughly three in 10 who considered them inappropriate.
The findings also showed that 69pc of Americans believe Trump’s private business interests influence his decisions as president.
That includes about half of Republicans, two-thirds of independents and nine in 10 Democrats, suggesting that concerns extend beyond Trump’s political opponents.
Trump has said he has no day-to-day role in his family’s businesses since returning to office and that his investments are independently managed.
White House defends Trump
The White House has rejected allegations of impropriety, saying the president’s investments are handled by independent financial institutions.
“There are no conflicts of interest,” White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly said, adding that the president acts in the best interests of the American public.
Trump’s family earned more than $1.4 billion last year from cryptocurrency ventures, including World Liberty Financial and the Trump meme coin.
US president has publicly promoted the digital assets, including his self-branded cryptocurrency during his second term.
Experts on presidential ethics have described the overlap between the president’s political role and his family’s business interests as unprecedented.
ALSO READ: Polls Show Falling US Support for Trump’s Deportation Policies
Richard Painter, who served as the top ethics lawyer for Republican President George W. Bush, said the second Trump administration has a more complex set of business interests than the first.
Americans are more divided over whether corruption is worse under the incumbent than under recent presidents.
Democrats largely believe there is more graft, whereas Republicans are split, with 56pc saying corruption is at least somewhat better and the remainder saying it is unchanged or worse.
The issue could become politically significant ahead of the November midterm elections, which will determine control of Congress for the final two years of the ongoing term.
Among respondents, 49pc identified Republicans as the more corrupt party, compared with 41pc who pointed to Democrats.
The Reuters/Ipsos survey was conducted online from August 14 to 17 among 1,166 US adults. It carries a margin of error of three percentage points for the overall sample and five points for individual party groups.
Conflict of Interest and Insider Trading
In corporate law, a conflict of interest arises when a person in a position of authority has a personal, financial or family interest that could interfere with their duty to act solely in the interests of the company, shareholders or public institution.
A conflict does not necessarily mean that wrongdoing has occurred. Corporate governance rules generally require such interests to be disclosed.
In many cases, the person concerned to withdraw from decisions where the conflict could affect their impartiality.
Insider trading is a separate and generally more serious offence. It occurs when a person trades in securities using material, non-public information that could influence an investor’s decision.
Such information may include undisclosed financial results, mergers, acquisitions or major contracts.
Trading on that information gives the insider an unfair advantage over investors who do not have access to it.
Most major jurisdictions prohibit insider trading and impose penalties because it undermines market integrity and investor confidence.
The precise legal definitions and penalties vary by jurisdiction, but these principles are broadly recognised across corporate and securities law.
