At Senate Hearing, Bondi Deflects as Lawmakers Press on Foreign Influence Concerns Tied to Trump-Linked Cryptocurrencies

Washington — A routine budget hearing for the Department of Justice erupted into an unusually tense confrontation this week as Attorney General Pam Bondi repeatedly sidestepped senators’ questions about potential foreign financial influence connected to cryptocurrency ventures promoted by President Trump. The exchange reflected widening anxieties in Washington about the merging of presidential financial interests and national security decision-making — and the Justice Department’s willingness to examine them.

The conflict began when Senator Jeff Merkley of Oregon pressed Bondi regarding a private dinner hosted earlier this year for approximately 220 individuals who had purchased large quantities of Trump-affiliated “memecoins,” a digital asset marketed as part of the former president’s growing financial ventures. Some attendees, Merkley noted, had publicly stated they bought substantial amounts of the cryptocurrency in hopes of gaining access or influence over U.S. policy.

One such investor, the head of a freight technology firm, said he purchased $2 million of the token and planned to invest up to $20 million more in order to secure changes in cross-border freight policy — a claim that raised alarms for lawmakers concerned about the possibility of transactional policymaking.

“Were foreign interests present at that dinner?” Merkley asked. “And will the Justice Department investigate whether foreign actors used these cryptocurrency purchases to seek influence over U.S. policy?”

Bondi immediately rejected the premise of the question, calling it “wildly offensive” to suggest the president might have been compromised. Instead, she pivoted sharply to a discussion of border security and drug trafficking cases in Oregon, accusing Merkley of attempting to “play a gotcha question” rather than focusing on violent crime.

“We’re here to talk about the Department of Justice and my budget,” Bondi said, adding, “President Trump has done everything to keep America safe.”

The senator pressed again, noting that he was raising ethical concerns — not border management — and pointed out that Bondi had also declined to answer similar questions before the House. The lack of transparency, he said, was troubling for a Justice Department that routinely warns of the dangers of foreign interference.

Bondi did not respond directly. “I will do everything to keep the people of your state safe,” she repeated, again referencing drug trafficking arrests rather than addressing the issue of foreign cryptocurrency buyers.

The exchange grew more pointed when Merkley introduced a second example: a transaction involving Trump’s stablecoin, known as USD1. According to public filings and corporate statements, the United Arab Emirates’ national security adviser — who also serves as CEO of the conglomerate MGX — sought U.S.-produced advanced AI chips shortly before MGX announced plans to purchase $2 billion worth of the stablecoin. The U.S. had previously restricted such exports to the UAE due to national security concerns.

Shortly afterward, Trump signaled during a Middle East visit that he was open to facilitating the transfer of those chips. “Does that sequence of events concern you?” Merkley asked.

Bondi again declined to answer, shifting her remarks back to drug cases in Oregon and accusing the senator of ignoring crime in his own state.

By the time Chairman Lisa Murkowski intervened to restore order, the hearing had sharply shifted from a discussion of budget priorities to an implicit debate over the Justice Department’s independence and its willingness to scrutinize potential conflicts of interest involving the White House.

After Bondi finished her testimony, Merkley summarized his concerns for the record. “The attorney general has made clear that she is deeply concerned about border security,” he said. “But on the matter of foreign influence and whether foreign governments or individuals are purchasing access to the White House through the president’s cryptocurrency products, she has refused to respond.”

The hearing underscores a mounting clash between congressional oversight committees and a Justice Department that has repeatedly framed inquiries involving Trump’s private businesses as partisan attempts to undermine the administration. But ethics specialists say the questions raised by Merkley mirror long-standing principles regarding presidential finances.

“Anytime a president sells a financial product directly to private or foreign investors, especially in large sums, it raises unavoidable questions about influence,” said Norman Eisen, a former ethics counsel in the Obama White House. “The Justice Department’s role is to ensure those questions are examined, not deflected.”

For now, Bondi has given no indication she plans to appoint a special investigator or issue new guidelines related to foreign financial influence. Lawmakers from both parties say the matter is unlikely to fade, especially as Trump’s crypto ventures continue expanding.

What the hearing revealed most clearly was a widening gap between Congress’s demand for transparency and the Justice Department’s reluctance to engage publicly on the issue. And in Washington, where influence often hides in procedural shadows, a refusal to answer can become the loudest message of all.