Introduction
The aim of this essay is to coin a new analytical term to describe the presidency of Donald Trump: the “crypto presidency.” The term is not merely a polemical label, but a theoretical instrument for analyzing a specific transformation of political power in the twenty-first century. At its core lies the question of how decision-making processes within modern democracies change when they are increasingly shaped by informal, transnational networks.
This analysis builds on existing scholarship on oligarchy, elite capture, and informal governance. Scholars in political sociology and state theory have shown that economic elites exert growing influence over state policy. In many cases, however, this influence still operates within institutional frameworks—through lobbying, campaign financing, or strategic appointments.
This essay argues that under Donald Trump, a qualitatively new configuration emerged. Institutional processes were not only influenced but increasingly bypassed, displaced, or functionally replaced. The analytical focus therefore shifts from the question “Who influences the state?” to “How is the state itself reorganized?”
The crypto presidency thus describes a mode of governance in which informal networks do not merely supplement formal institutions but play a central role in political decision-making. These networks are often transnational and link economic, political, and strategic interests in ways that transcend traditional categories of state sovereignty.
Theoretical Framework: Oligarchy, the State, and Informal Power
To sharpen the concept of the crypto presidency analytically, a more precise theoretical positioning is required. Classical theories of oligarchy—from the “iron law of oligarchy” to modern elite theory—assume that political systems tend structurally toward domination by small, wealthy groups. Yet in these models, the basic architecture of the state remains intact: institutions persist, even if distorted.
The crypto presidency goes a step further. It refers to a situation in which power is not only concentrated within institutions but partially relocates outside them. In this model, the state no longer functions solely as an autonomous actor but increasingly as an interface between competing networks.
This perspective aligns with modern state theories that conceptualize the state not as a monolithic entity but as an ensemble of relationships. Under the crypto presidency, the balance of these relationships shifts in favor of informal actors whose influence is neither transparent nor democratically legitimized.
A key distinction from traditional forms of influence is that power here is exercised less through formal authority or institutional position than through access, proximity, and network connections. This form of power is difficult to regulate because it evades conventional mechanisms of oversight.
Thesis
Donald Trump’s presidency was characterized by extensive financial entanglements with domestic and foreign oligarchic actors who exerted significant influence over U.S. foreign policy. This “crypto presidency,” marked by opacity, speculation, and transactional logic, systematically shifted decision-making processes away from institutional structures toward informal networks. In this process, the interests of these networks were often privileged over democratic principles, institutional integrity, and strategic coherence.
At the same time, this model marginalized core elements of democratic governance: the American public, their elected representatives in Congress, professional military expertise, and established alliance structures. Decisions on central questions of foreign policy—including war and peace—were increasingly made in contexts that eluded public accountability. Much like cryptocurrencies—operating in decentralized, weakly regulated, and often opaque systems—this presidency functioned through concealed relationships, informal exchanges, and a logic of short-term transactional gains.
Trump, the Adelsons, and Israel
The relationship between Donald Trump and Miriam Adelson provides a central example of the intersection between financial patronage and foreign policy decision-making. Since the 2016 election cycle, the Adelson family has been among the most significant financial supporters of Trump and the Republican Party (Newsweek 2021). This support reached new intensity in the 2024 election cycle (New York Times 2024; Times of Israel 2024).
Parallel to this financial backing, the Trump administration implemented a series of policies closely aligned with the strategic objectives of the Israeli government. These included recognizing Jerusalem as Israel’s capital, relocating the U.S. embassy, and acknowledging Israeli sovereignty over the Golan Heights. These decisions were not merely symbolic; they marked a profound shift in U.S. foreign policy.
From the perspective of international law, these moves are particularly significant, as they challenge existing international norms and resolutions. The United States thereby moved away from its traditional role as mediator toward a position of explicit alignment. Within the framework of the crypto presidency, this shift can be interpreted as a form of policymaking shaped less by institutional continuity than by network interests.
This trend intensified during Trump’s second term. The lifting of sanctions on Israeli settler groups (Reuters 2025) and the removal of restrictions on military support (Axios 2025) underscore this trajectory. Additionally, reports indicated that the U.S. government pressured regional actors to facilitate the displacement of Palestinian populations (Newsweek 2025).
These policies raise fundamental questions: to what extent do such decisions reflect national interests, and to what extent are they the outcome of networks in which financial, ideological, and geopolitical interests converge?
Saudi Arabia and Kushner
The relationship between Jared Kushner and Mohammed bin Salman illustrates the personalized structure of the crypto presidency and its embedding in global capital flows. Kushner served as a central architect of U.S. Middle East policy despite lacking formal diplomatic training or institutional experience.
His authority derived primarily from personal proximity to the president. This form of influence represents a departure from institutionally grounded decision-making and signals an increasing personalization of political power.
The investment by the Saudi sovereign wealth fund in Kushner’s firm after his departure from office intensified concerns about structural conflicts of interest (New York Times 2022; CBS News 2024). The issue is not merely the possibility of a direct exchange between policy decisions and financial gain, but the systemic blurring of public authority and private capital.
This development reflects a broader trend in which political actors function as nodes within global financial networks. In this context, foreign policy is no longer solely an expression of state interests but part of complex exchange relations in which economic and political objectives are intertwined.
Russia and Ukraine
Trump’s connections to Russian-linked capital extend this analysis to a global scale. Reports of financial support and business ties suggest that economic interests played a long-term role (Foreign Policy 2018; Guardian 2017; Politico 2016; Center for American Progress 2018).
These relationships coincided with political positions characterized by a relatively restrained stance toward Russia, alongside skepticism toward robust support for Ukraine.
While a direct causal link cannot be definitively established, this alignment points to a structural issue: the increasing inseparability of economic interests and geopolitical decision-making. Within the crypto presidency, these boundaries blur, making it difficult to clearly attribute political motivations.
Mechanisms of the Crypto Presidency
The Political Economy of the Crypto Presidency
A central dimension of the crypto presidency is its political economy. It does not operate in isolation but is embedded in global capital flows and financial networks linking state actors with investors, sovereign wealth funds, and private corporations.
In this context, political power increasingly becomes a resource within economic exchange relations. Foreign policy decisions acquire a dual function: they are not only expressions of strategic considerations but can also generate economic benefits.
This fundamentally alters the logic of political decision-making. Whereas traditional models assume that economic interests influence politics, the crypto presidency demonstrates that politics itself becomes part of economic processes.
This raises fundamental normative questions. When political decisions are potentially tied to private financial interests, the distinction between public interest and private gain becomes blurred. This undermines trust in political institutions and calls into question the legitimacy of state action.
The Network State and the Expansion of Power
A defining feature of the crypto presidency is the emergence of a “network state,” in which political power is no longer primarily organized through institutional hierarchies but through flexible, often informal networks.
These networks connect state actors with economic elites, international investors, and political decision-makers in other countries. They often operate beyond clearly defined jurisdictions and evade traditional mechanisms of oversight.
The expansion of power is particularly evident in the merging of national and international spheres. Decisions are no longer made exclusively within state institutions but within contexts where public and private interests are deeply intertwined.
Institutional Erosion: Congress, the Military, and Alliances
Another central feature of the crypto presidency is the gradual erosion of institutional structures. The U.S. Congress, traditionally central to foreign policy, is increasingly marginalized. Decisions are made outside formal legislative processes, weakening democratic oversight.
The role of the military also changes. Professional military assessments may be sidelined in favor of political or personal considerations, increasing the risk of strategic miscalculations.
At the same time, international alliances are transformed. Traditional partners are no longer treated as stable strategic communities but as components of a transactional system in which relationships are evaluated based on short-term utility.
The Informalization of War: The Iran Case
The trajectory toward confrontation with Iran represents the clearest manifestation of these dynamics. Traditionally, decisions about war involve a complex interplay between the executive, legislature, and military expertise. Under the crypto presidency, this balance shifts toward informal structures.
Actors such as Jared Kushner and Steve Witkoff played key roles in diplomatic processes despite lacking formal institutional positions (CNN 2026; Politico 2026). At the same time, reports indicate that Kushner actively sought to raise substantial funds from Middle Eastern investors during these processes (Common Dreams 2026).
This overlap between diplomacy and capital accumulation challenges the normative separation between public office and private interest. It suggests a situation in which foreign policy decisions are structurally embedded in economic networks.
Moreover, this development raises concerns that diplomatic processes may be instrumentalized. When negotiations occur alongside escalating actions, diplomacy risks becoming part of strategic performance rather than genuine conflict resolution.
War without Process: The Erosion of Constitutional Control
The informalization of war also has a constitutional dimension. In the traditional U.S. system, Congress plays a central role in authorizing military action, ensuring both separation of powers and democratic legitimacy.
Under the crypto presidency, this role is weakened. Decisions about military escalation emerge in contexts that evade parliamentary oversight. Informal networks replace formal procedures, undermining key constitutional safeguards.
The consequences are profound. Without institutional oversight, the risk increases that military decisions are based on incomplete information or narrow interests. Public debate is also constrained, as decision-making processes remain opaque.
The result is a form of “war without process,” in which the boundaries between diplomacy, strategy, and political opportunism become blurred—posing a fundamental challenge to democratic systems.
Implications for Democracy and International Order
The crypto presidency has far-reaching consequences for democratic systems and the international order. It undermines accountability, weakens institutions, and transforms the logic of political decision-making.
Particularly problematic is the growing ambiguity regarding whose interests are being represented. The traditional notion of a coherent national interest is called into question.
At the same time, the weakening of institutional checks increases the risk of strategic incoherence and policy failure.
The Transformation of International Alliances
An often underestimated aspect of the crypto presidency is its impact on international alliances. Traditionally, alliances are based on long-term strategic interests, shared norms, and institutionalized cooperation. Under the crypto presidency, these foundations are increasingly replaced by transactional logic.
Alliances are no longer seen as stable partnerships but as flexible relationships subject to constant reassessment. This erodes trust, as partner states must question the reliability of political commitments.
At the same time, this logic opens new avenues for influence. States or actors with substantial financial resources can expand their power by investing strategically in political networks. This reshapes international relations and shifts power toward economically dominant actors.
In the long term, this dynamic may lead to the fragmentation of the international order, as stable alliance systems are replaced by short-term, opportunistic arrangements.
Conclusion
The crypto presidency does not merely represent a deviation from established political practices but signals a profound structural transformation of modern governance. As this essay has demonstrated, it is not simply a system of individual conflicts of interest or isolated decisions, but a coherent mode of power in which informal, transnational networks play a central role.
The case studies analyzed—from relations with Miriam Adelson to entanglements with Saudi Arabia, Russian capital flows, and the role of informal actors in the Iran context—demonstrate that political decisions are increasingly made within a field where state authority, private interests, and geopolitical strategy are deeply intertwined. In this system, foreign policy is no longer primarily shaped by institutional procedures or long-term strategic planning, but by flexible and often opaque networks that largely evade state control.
Crucially, the crypto presidency does not only affect outcomes—it transforms the processes through which those outcomes are produced. Institutional mechanisms—especially Congress, professional military expertise, and diplomatic structures—are increasingly marginalized or bypassed. In their place emerge personalized decision-making structures based on proximity, loyalty, and financial entanglement.
This transformation has profound implications for democracy. When decisions are made within informal networks, democratic accountability loses substance. The public, elected representatives, and institutional oversight mechanisms are systematically displaced from core decision-making processes, undermining both transparency and legitimacy.
At the same time, the crypto presidency reshapes international politics. Alliances become transactional, diplomacy is instrumentalized, and military decisions shift into informal domains. The informalization of war—particularly visible in the Iran case—raises serious constitutional and international legal concerns.
Moreover, the crypto presidency is deeply embedded in global economic structures. Political power becomes not only an instrument of governance but a resource within economic exchange relations. This blurs the boundary between public office and private interest and raises fundamental questions about the integrity of state decision-making.
The crypto presidency should therefore be understood not as an anomaly of a single administration, but as a symptom of broader structural shifts in the relationship between state, capital, and power. It reveals how political authority in a globalized world is increasingly organized through networks that evade traditional categories of sovereignty, responsibility, and democratic control.
Addressing this transformation requires comprehensive institutional reforms, including stricter campaign finance regulations, expanded transparency requirements, and stronger mechanisms of parliamentary and judicial oversight. Without such measures, the logic of the crypto presidency risks becoming entrenched, leading to a long-term erosion of democratic governance.
The concept of the crypto presidency provides an analytical framework for understanding these developments. It directs attention not only to individual actors or decisions but to the underlying structures shaping political power in the twenty-first century. In this sense, the crypto presidency should be understood less as an exception than as a warning—an indication of how democratic systems can be transformed when informal power structures increasingly overshadow institutional foundations.
*After the death of Sheldon Adelson, Miriam Adelson, a dual Israeli American citizen, became the owner of Las Vegas Sands. She is the publisher of Israel Hayom, owns the Las Vegas Review-Journal, and is the majority owner of the Dallas Mavericks basketball team alongside her son-in-law Patrick Dumont.
