What does a TRUMP presidency look like?

[Sheilbh]

Sorry Zanza you accidentally triggered me profesisionally These cases come from Max Schrems - fabulous campaigner who's won two previous cases at the CJEU. He's been making very similar arguments for the last four years. Having worked in the area for a decade they're hugely important, with fairly sweeping statements and they are fundamentally meaningless in practice. Initially it was Safe Harbor which was overturned as a mechanism for international data transfers, then it was Privacy Shield, now it's the DPF.

The underlying problem is those aren't the only mechanisms for doing data transfers - they're just the one that need least paperwork. Google self-certifies that it complies with a bunch of standards. The alternative is that you sign standard contractual clauses - these are, as the name indicates, standard clauses issued by the European Commission that you cannot amend. So practically speaking what happens every single time Max Schrems wins a case is that lawyers go around sending emails of standard contractual clauses that neither side reads (because we know what it says and you can't change it) and both sides sign.

To be honest it tends to be a focus for consultants who I think maybe prey a little on inexperienced or over-resoucred businesses, because it's busywork for lawyers and consultants and campaigners that has not meaningfully improved the security or privacy of a single European in the last decade (leaving aside the fact a Dutch colleague of mine always enjoyed making that none of this matters within Europe where law enforcement and intelligence are subject to broad carveouts from privacy laws - and Dutch law enforcement alone has more active wiretaps than the FBI). The former UK Information Commissioner (and before that British Columbia privacy regulator) used to say that as a regulator this was the law and you had to comply but she thought the focus on transfers tended to miss the forest for the trees. What matters and should worry isn't necessarily just the fact of data being transferred internationally but whose, for what purposes, what data? What's the actual risk - and we'd be far better worrying about that than triggering my third round of sending emails to counterparties with the same documents I sent last time I think Schrems' other focues on personalised advertising is an area that would have far more impact on people's actual privacy (although I disagree with him on quite a lot about it).

I'd add that Schrems' point is fundamentally correct - the US focus works politically post-Snowden but the issue is more fundamental but I think it's intrinsic to a globalised market in service. You can sign whatever piece of paper you want practically it's not going to override the law of the country that company is established in whether that's Chinese laws requiring state approval for the transfer of personal data out of China, Indian laws requiring localised copies are created or American (and indeed European) laws requiring certain companies to grant access in certain circumstancse to intelligence agencies or law enforcement. It's about trying to work out what the risk is and if there are other measures you could put in place to maybe mitigate it (e.g. use someone else's encryption).

[The Minsky Moment]

No one in Europe has sufficient brass or steel to craft those balls

I don't follow litigation in the EU that closely, but my understanding from the Bindl case is that there is a private right of action for unlawful data transfer.  So the question is whether there are plaintiffs and plaintiffs lawyers with the requisite testicular metallic content and whether there are enough judges with similar attributes.

In the Latombe case, the General Court ruled that the American Data Protection Review Court provided adequate protection within the meaning of the EU law; however, that ruling appears to have been based in part on the finding that the DPRC is "independent agency whose mission consists in the impartial supervision of the work carried out by the executive" (para 54), specifically singling out the fact that "the DPRC judges may be dismissed only by the Attorney General and only for cause, namely misconduct, malfeasance, breach of security, neglect of duty or incapacity."  (para 56) I would expect some enterprising litigant to revisit that decision . . .

[Sheilbh]

I don't follow litigation in the EU that closely, but my understanding from the Bindl case is that there is a private right of action for unlawful data transfer.  So the question is whether there are plaintiffs and plaintiffs lawyers with the requisite testicular metallic content and whether there are enough judges with similar attributes.

I think establishing an unlawful data transfer isn't straightforward.

But also a feature here is that class actions and that type of group claim that would make it worthwhile to law firms - unless they are looking for a model claimant to try and make a principled interpretation of the law. It's a key difference betwen Europe and the US in this area that the driver of risk here is regulatory, while in the US it's clever claimant lawyers or groups of AGs seeking re-election (and it's a heresy for a European tech lawyer - but I think California balanced all of this a lot better than Europe).

There is a slight exception with Germany especially as a form of legal insurance is often included in household insurance and as a matter of public policy the insurers can't make a judgement on the merits of those claims (as that would replace the legal system with the insurance as an arbiter on worthwhile claims). Those insurance policies cover law firm fees and court fees I think.

This has led to a cottage industry of very small DP claims - normally it's about retention, breach or misuse of data. I could be wrong (and I'm relying on a presentation I saw from a German law firm as, like much of Europe, the German justice system is a lot less online and open than the American - especially at this level of claim). In general though I think the courts have increasingly viewed those claims as fairly frivolous. Basically it's where you involved in a data breach - you could be due compensation, even if you cannot demonstrate any harm, or misuse - I've seen examples where it's literally a multiple choice form to populate the claim. More senior courts in Germany have issued some very unhelpful decisions for the claimant lawyers. My understanding is tht the amount claimants are winning is falling very rapidly and it may not be a profitable sector for those claimant law firms.

The UK had a very promising for group litigation on basically Google jailbreaking Safari's settings to unlawfully collect data from iPhone users - the Court of Appeal decision (which I loved) was very strong on all of this. But they were overruled by the Supreme Court, because they said you still need to demonstrate damage and the CofA's take that "loss of control" of data that has economic value to Google constitutes damage was wrong, but also because there isn't enough of a common interest between possible claimants. That was the most promising decision in Europe on group actions - and in the UK it's now fairly limited to data breaches that cause damage (e.g. the BA breach on their card payment page).

[grumbler]

The fact that the holding on birth citizenship was only 5-4 really tells you about the extent of the rot.  It would be like having a supposed expert body of mathematicians ruling on addition problems, with 5 of them saying 1+1=2 and the other 4 saying 1+1=frog

And one of the five (Kavanaugh) states in his dissent that the problem with Trump's executive order is not the Constitution, but the law...and states that Congress can change the law and achieve the intended aims of the EO...without it being in contravention of the 14th Amendment.

Kavanaugh was not part of the five-justice majority.

[Tonitrus]

The fact that the holding on birth citizenship was only 5-4 really tells you about the extent of the rot.  It would be like having a supposed expert body of mathematicians ruling on addition problems, with 5 of them saying 1+1=2 and the other 4 saying 1+1=frog

And one of the five (Kavanaugh) states in his dissent that the problem with Trump's executive order is not the Constitution, but the law...and states that Congress can change the law and achieve the intended aims of the EO...without it being in contravention of the 14th Amendment.

Kavanaugh was not part of the five-justice majority.

My mistake (though I did say he was a "dissent" ) ...some of the poorer news reporting was saying it was a 6-3  decision, when it was indeed really more like a 5-1*-3 (*with a weasly caveat)...at least on constitutional grounds.

[Syt]

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cvgmv98ez3zo

Trump made more than $1bn from crypto in first year back in office

US President Donald Trump made more than $1bn (£750m) last year from business dealings in cryptocurrency, according to his mandatory financial report for 2025.

In a 927-page disclosure, he reported $635m in royalties from a Trump meme coin that has plunged in value since he launched it days before taking office.

He also reported over $500m in income from World Liberty Financial, a cryptocurrency firm founded by his own sons and the children of his special envoy, Steve Witkoff.

He earned millions more from real estate and Trump-themed items. But the White House denied he was profiting from the presidency.

The earnings from his latest financial disclosure far outpace the previous ones for 2024, when Trump disclosed over $600m of income.

But the White House, which has repeatedly emphasised that Trump has placed his businesses in a trust managed by his sons, again denied any conflict of interest.

White House deputy press secretary Anna Kelly said the president had proudly made the US "the crypto capital of the world".

"Neither the President nor his family has ever engaged - or will ever engage - in conflicts of interest," she said in a statement.

She added: "All actions by President Trump and his administration are taken in the best interest of the American people – and any so-called 'reporters' pushing otherwise are recycling the same, tired, false narrative that Democrats and the legacy media have been pushing for a decade."

The president himself has also highlighted that he is not subject to federal conflict of interest laws.

Trump once criticised cryptocurrency, famously calling Bitcoin a "scam" in 2021 and a "disaster waiting to happen".

But, during his presidential campaign three years later, Trump said he wanted to make the US the "crypto capital of the planet". One of his first actions when he returned to the White House last year was an executive order to "support the responsible growth" of the crypto industry.

Richard Painter, the former chief White House ethics lawyer under George W Bush, told the BBC it was "extraordinary", that Trump had made $1bn from crypto.

"Of course it's a conflict of interest," he said.

Will Walker-Arnott, director of private clients at Raymond James Financial Group, said: "His approach, I suppose, is in contrast to previous presidents in terms of money making.

"Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into a blind trust and George W Bush sold his interest in the Texas Rangers before becoming president, but Trump seems to be operating in a very different manner and seems to be making a lot of money through this family crypto company."

Trump Bibles, watches and fragrance
Tuesday's disclosure shows his crypto earnings far overshadow income from his real estate business, which first catapulted him to fame.

Trump earned around $77m from his Mar-a-Lago club and $122m from his golf club in Doral, Florida.

He also earned more than $30m each from golf clubs in Bedminster, New Jersey, and Jupiter, Florida, and Turnberry, Scotland.

Trump also earned millions from other business ventures, according to the financial disclosure.

These included $4.7m in royalties from Trump-branded watches, along with Trump-branded Bibles, trainers, fragrances and guitars.

First Lady Melania Trump also listed her income from 2025 in the disclosure. She made $10.7m from a "license agreement" related to the documentary about her that was released last year.

Another $6m in income is listed for her from the sale of NFTs, which are digital images sold online.

The president listed some $86.5m of income in settlements from various legal actions.

These included $16m from a lawsuit against ABC, $16m from CBS Broadcasting and CBS Interactive, $24.5m from Meta, $22m from YouTube and $8m from X.

But the White House has said most of that money went towards Trump's future presidential library or a nonprofit dedicated to the upkeep of park sites in the Washington DC area.

According to a list of the world's richest people compiled by Forbes magazine, Trump has an estimated fortune of $6bn - up from $2.3bn in 2024. Bloomberg's Billionaire's Index puts the president's net worth at $7.6bn.

After his return to the White House, Trump adopted a friendly approach to the crypto industry, even as companies linked to his family issued digital tokens.

The Trump-appointed head of financial regulator, the Securities and Exchange Commission, is also seen as an ally of the crypto industry.

Since taking office in April 2025, Paul Atkins has shifted the agency away from the strict, regulation-by-enforcement approach of his predecessor.

Last July, the president signed the GENIUS Act into law, to make "make America the undisputed leader in digital assets".

At more than 900 pages, Trump's annual filing dwarfs those of his predecessors. For example, Joe Biden's financial report for his last full year in office was 11 pages long.

[crazy canuck]

The fact that the holding on birth citizenship was only 5-4 really tells you about the extent of the rot.  It would be like having a supposed expert body of mathematicians ruling on addition problems, with 5 of them saying 1+1=2 and the other 4 saying 1+1=frog

And one of the five (Kavanaugh) states in his dissent that the problem with Trump's executive order is not the Constitution, but the law...and states that Congress can change the law and achieve the intended aims of the EO...without it being in contravention of the 14th Amendment.

Kavanaugh was not part of the five-justice majority.

My mistake (though I did say he was a "dissent" ) ...some of the poorer news reporting was saying it was a 6-3  decision, when it was indeed really more like a 5-1*-3 (*with a weasly caveat)...at least on constitutional grounds.

It was a 5 justice majority, but Kavanagh was a concurring decision.  That means he agreed with the result and so it's not inaccurate to say it was a 6-3 decision.

The significance of his concurring decision is that he dealt with an issue that I don't think the majority dealt with, and that was the ability of Congress to pass legislation to alter the right.  As I understand it that opens the door for Congress to act in the future.

And of course, what the US Supreme Court has now established is that this president is meaningless and so all the Republicans need to wait for is another change in the composition of the court for this case to go back up and be overturned.

[Sophie Scholl]

Absolutely brutal decisions. Trans folks have no right to Title IX and no protection/right to file claims under the Equal Protection Clause, dark money has no limits, and the "win" was waaaaay too close and will now be the new Roe rallying cry for MAGA. 

[The Minsky Moment]

And of course, what the US Supreme Court has now established is that this president is meaningless and so all the Republicans need to wait for is another change in the composition of the court for this case to go back up and be overturned.

To put a fine point on it, four justices voted to excise a core part of the Constitution on the flimsiest of pretexts, based on reasoning that amounts to legal gibberish. If you can 4 votes for that, you can get 4 votes for just about anything, as long as it doesn't disturb the Street or the Dear Leader, which means we are one personnel change away from the abyss.

Sophie is right that the other cases are awful as well.

In the B.P.J. case, Thomas at least had the honesty to file a concurrence that flat out would nuke the ability of trans plaintiffs to file equal protection cases. The majority, fittingly represented by the sanctimonious Kavanaugh, would not go that far, but monkeyed around with the factual record and the legal precedents to manufacture the same result. I guess there is some comfort to be taken that trans plaintiffs will continue to enjoy the theoretical right to bring EP claims, even if they are highly unlikely to ever win any of them at the SCT level.

The FEC case was no great surprise and in itself it isn't that highly consequential in that the Court has already freed up so many options for open and legalized bribery.  One would have hoped that the grotesque corruption and abuses on display over the past 18 months would have shocked the Court into reconsidering its Citizens United line of cases, but of course that wasn't going to happen.   IMO far more consequential is the fact that because of Trump v Slaughter the Federal Election Commission is now a pure creature of  Executive control, and thus the sole organization policing federal elections is now subject to the whims of Donald Trump.

[Sheilbh]

https://www.nytimes.com/2026/06/29/us/trump-intelligence-agencies-spies-master-list.html

Very concerning - can't really think of any possible upside from this and the best case scenario is creating a massive security risk.