TikTok has publicly denied allegations that it bought $300 million worth of TRUMP memecoins to sway US President Donald Trump.

The company addressed the claims on June 19 in a post on X, labeling the accusation “false and irresponsible” and aimed at misrepresenting its actions.

The statement followed comments by US Congressman Brad Sherman, who suggested that TikTok’s parent company, ByteDance, purchased a large volume of TRUMP tokens. He claimed the alleged transaction amounted to a direct bribe to President Trump.

Sherman argued that since Trump created the token at no cost, any purchases funneled financial benefits straight to him.

TikTok dismissed Sherman’s narrative and highlighted that his interpretation of a recent letter was misleading. The company stressed that no such transaction had occurred and described the allegations as baseless.

The timing of the accusation coincides with a new Executive Order from President Trump, granting TikTok an additional 90 days to finalize the sale of its US operations or risk a nationwide ban.

Critics argue that the President lacked legal grounds to extend the deadline, citing the initial law passed by Congress that allowed for only one extension.

Trump’s crypto ties trigger ethics concern

Beyond TikTok, the TRUMP memecoin itself is drawing scrutiny from the industry.

The token, promoted by the Trump family, has sparked growing concerns over conflicts of interest. Critics warn that a president with direct or indirect ties to digital assets could face serious questions about ethics, transparency, and foreign influence.

Several US lawmakers and nonprofit watchdogs have expressed concern over the potential misuse of political office for personal financial gain, especially through tokens with no clear use case or underlying value.

Meanwhile, the TRUMP memecoin continues to trade far from its all-time high and faces consistent sell pressure. According to data from CryptoSlate, the token has fallen over 34% in the past month.

As of press time, it was trading around $9.43, down significantly from its January all-time high of $44.28.

Mentioned in this article

Congressman Tom Emmer reintroduced the Securities Clarity Act on March 26 alongside Rep. Darren Soto, reviving a bipartisan effort to clarify the classification of digital assets under federal securities law.

The bill aims to clearly distinguish between an “investment contract” and the asset associated with it — an issue at the heart of ongoing regulatory uncertainty that has hindered innovation in the digital asset space.

Clear line between tokens and securities

At the core of the legislation is the introduction of the term “investment contract asset.”

This designation would separate the underlying digital asset from the investment contract through which it may have been initially offered, allowing for regulatory treatment to evolve as the asset itself transitions to broader utility or decentralization.

According to Emmer:

“Without clear definitions, entrepreneurs can’t accurately assess risks or launch compliant products. Our legislation helps fix that so investors can fully participate in this emerging technology without sacrificing consumer protections.”

Soto echoed that sentiment, emphasizing the need for predictable rules that support both economic growth and responsible oversight. “This bill adds much-needed certainty to a fast-evolving space and helps protect investors while fostering innovation,” he said.

Legislative momentum

The Securities Clarity Act’s reintroduction comes amid growing congressional interest in modernizing digital asset regulation under President Donald Trump’s administration.

The bill was previously incorporated into the Financial Innovation and Technology for the 21st Century (FIT21) Act, which passed the House of Representatives in May 2024 with bipartisan support.

Its reappearance signals continued momentum in Congress to establish clearer jurisdiction between the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) and the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC), two agencies that have often clashed over oversight of digital assets.

Lawmakers from both parties have increasingly acknowledged the need to define how securities laws apply to digital assets, especially as global competitors adopt more advanced regulatory frameworks.

Many see the Securities Clarity Act as a foundational step in a broader legislative strategy to ensure the US remains a hub for blockchain innovation while protecting investors.

Mentioned in this article