By Phil Huber, ADVANCE COLUMNIST
Republicans were right to investigate Hunter Biden. When the family of a powerful public official receives foreign money, holds lucrative overseas business positions, or appears to market access to government, Congress has a duty to ask questions. It should seek documents, hear sworn testimony, trace financial flows and determine whether public power was used for private gain.
That principle should not be partisan. It should not disappear because the president is a Republican—or because the family name is Trump. The proper question is not whether Congress should declare anyone guilty. It is whether Congress should apply the same threshold for oversight to every president and every presidential family.
Democrats did not uniformly oppose scrutiny of Hunter Biden. In 2023, Rep. Dan Goldman, a New York Democrat, said that if Hunter Biden had committed illegal acts, “he should face charges.” Other Democrats argued that the Justice Department’s investigation should proceed while rejecting the claim that the House inquiry had proved wrongdoing by President Joe Biden.
That is an important distinction. A legitimate investigation of Hunter Biden did not automatically establish guilt by Joe Biden. Likewise, legitimate scrutiny of Trump-family business dealings would not establish that Donald Trump committed a crime. Investigations exist to sort evidence from insinuation.
Sen. John Curtis, a Utah Republican, recently offered the most sensible model. He asked the Senate Judiciary Committee to investigate the business dealings and foreign relationships of both Donald Trump Jr. and Hunter Biden, and to subpoena them for testimony. Curtis argued that the country should not accept one standard for a Republican president’s family and another for a Democratic president’s family.
That should be Congress’s rule. The House pursued the Biden-family matter because it saw warning signs: foreign money, valuable family connections, business activity and possible access to a senior official. It did not wait for a final bribery conviction before opening hearings, seeking bank records or demanding testimony. If those facts justified inquiry, then, comparable facts should justify inquiry now.
Consider the president’s $TRUMP memecoin. Its promoters offered the top holders an invitation to dine privately with the president at his Northern Virginia golf club, with additional VIP access for the highest-ranking buyers. Thirty-six House Democrats asked the Justice Department to investigate whether the promotion raised bribery and foreign-emoluments concerns, citing the possibility of anonymous and foreign purchasers buying access to the president.
That request did not prove a crime, and neither should anyone claim that it did. The question for Congress is simpler: Who bought the token? Did foreign governments, state-linked enterprises, lobbyists, regulated companies or people seeking pardons or policy changes participate? What access did they receive? What records exist? Those are ordinary oversight questions.
The reported UAE investment in World Liberty Financial raises a similar issue. Congressional materials describe a reported $500 million purchase of a 49 percent stake in the Trump-family-affiliated crypto company by entities linked to Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE national-security adviser. The UAE later obtained more favorable treatment for applications involving advanced U.S. computing equipment.
Timing alone does not establish a quid pro quo. CNBC reported that there was no evidence the UAE-linked investment influenced the Commerce Department’s decision, while administration officials cited national-security safeguards and the UAE’s defense relationship with the United States. Those are relevant defenses, and they should be evaluated fairly.
But an innocent explanation is not a reason to forbid questions. It is a reason to ask them carefully. Congress should examine the policy record, communications among agencies, contacts with Trump-family businesses, investor identities, ethics reviews and safeguards against conflicts. It should hear from career officials as well as political appointees. Then it should publish its findings.
A serious inquiry should also avoid a double standard in the other direction. Congress should not assume that a family member’s foreign business connection automatically implicates the president. House Democrats made that point about Joe Biden after reviewing testimony from the Republican-led inquiry. The same caution applies to Donald Trump. Evidence—not party loyalty, headlines or suspicion alone—must decide whether wrongdoing occurred.
Still, caution is not silence. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it may not be a duck. But it is enough to take a closer look. Congress has already established the principle that foreign money, family business and proximity to presidential power warrant rigorous inquiry. It should now apply that principle without fear or favor.
With elections approaching, voters should ask every House and Senate candidate: Do you believe Congress should investigate credible evidence of foreign money, family business and presidential access no matter whose name is on the door? If your answer was yes for Hunter Biden but no for Donald Trump Jr., explain the difference.
The remedy is not a partisan fishing expedition. It is a bipartisan review with clear questions, defined records, sworn testimony and public findings. Follow the money. Identify the buyers. Examine the official decisions. Protect due process. And apply one standard—to Biden, to Trump and to every future president.
***
Phil Huber is a retired Army Reserve colonel, a federal civil servant, and a retired consultant who writes on civic education. He lives in Fredericksburg.
