Several mainstream articles have recently discussed the wealth gained by the Trump family during the first year and a half of the Trump presidency.  As with many of the activities that surround our president, the financial gains acquired by his family are an historical first for a sitting president.  There are a couple of important questions that should be answered.  First, how extraordinary is their wealth growth?  Second, how does the increase in wealth compare to previous presidential family holdings?

Based on publicly available disclosures, reports, filings, and various watchdog organizations, it is estimated that the Trump family has increased its holdings up to $2.4 to $9 billion.  The earnings come from family cryptocurrency investments, Trump name licensing agreements, foreign business ventures, and government contracts.

Crypto

Consider the Trump business connections with crypto currency.  The New Yorker reported that Trump investments in crypto have resulted in $3.4 billion profit over the years of Trump’s political career.  Forbes estimates that Trump’s personal net worth has increased almost $4.2 billion since 2024.  The Wall Street Journal’s research puts the figure at $4 billion in just crypto earnings.  And the Democratic House Oversight Committee estimates crypto wealth at $4.9 billion.

President Trump reshaped the U.S. crypto landscape more aggressively and comprehensively than any prior administration. He deregulated, promoted, and strategically integrated crypto into federal policy, turning it from a fringe financial technology into a declared national economic and strategic asset.

Within days of taking office in 2025, Trump scrapped Biden‑era enforcement policies that had aggressively targeted crypto firms.  He next issued Executive Order 14178, “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology.”  This order sets the philosophical and regulatory foundation of Trump’s crypto agenda. This was the most pro‑crypto executive order ever issued by a U.S. president. 

His next step, through Executive Order 14233, “Creation of a Strategic Bitcoin Reserve,” established the Strategic Bitcoin Reserve. This order signaled that the U.S. views Bitcoin as a geopolitical resource, not just a speculative asset.

Trump then appointed Paul Atkins, a deregulatory former SEC commissioner, as SEC Chair.  Under Atkins, the SEC dropped high‑profile enforcement cases, softened rules on memecoins (coins/medallions with someone’s likeness), mining, and stablecoins, and shifted toward a “light‑touch” regulatory posture.

This dramatically changed the compliance environment for crypto businesses.  Trump’s actions expanded the crypto industry’s scale, legitimacy, and investment flows.

The crypto journey gained popularity when Trump announced his meme coin just before his inauguration.  AP and Chainanalyis (a blockchain analysis firm) estimated that the coin generated $320 million.  In addition, the President’s support for crypto currency has been a major boost for the young startup firms such as World Liberty Financial, a company founded by the President and his sons.  World Liberty recently announced that it expects to receive a federal banking charter that will allow it to operate more like a bank.  Does this present a conflict of interest?  The President rightly claims that he is no longer involved in the company

Business Ventures/Stock Trading

As reported by CBS, during the first quarter of 2026, federally required disclosures show that over 3,600 transactions valued between $212 and $695 million were made by the President or his representatives.  Of note is a $5 million investment in Nvidia.  Nvidia is an advanced chip exporter to China, whose trading is directly impacted by the federal government.  Other major portfolio investments include Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, and Northrop Grumman.  These firms are highly connected to defense contracts.  Some estimates suggest that the President has generated between $200 and $700 million through stock trades and assets sales.  Trading stocks while having policy making ties to the companies being invested in creates major ethical questions.

Licensing Agreements

Projects such as the “God Bless the USA Bible,” the Trump Mobile phone, Trump sneakers, and the Trump guitar have added to the already financial success of the trademark registered Trump brand.  How much money has the Trump brand added to family wealth since Donald Trump became president?  The Trump brand has added billions to the Trump family’s wealth since Donald Trump first became president, depending on how the estimate is calculated. Estimates come from major outlets including The New Yorker, MSN, Forbes, and Bloomberg.

Foreign Deals

Trump businesses have several significant projects with various countries.  The businesses claim that they are not working directly with foreign governments.  However, in many countries the organizations involved with the Trump initiatives are closely associated with their governments.  For example, in Qatar a Trump golf course and villa is being built by a Qatar government owned business. Other projects in Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Vietnam have close ties to their governments.  Don Jr. and Eric Trump have met with leaders in other countries such as Hungary, Somaliland, Israel, the United Kingdom and Hungary.  While there is no stated quid pro quo, there are certainly perceptions of undo influence coming from the fact that their father is president.

Historical Comparison to Other Presidential Families

The Trump family’s financial gains during Donald Trump’s presidency are unprecedented in scale, speed, and direct connection to the presidency when compared with any other U.S. presidential families. No other first family has seen anything close to the same magnitude of enrichment while a president was in office.

In 2025 alone, Trump reportedly gained a total of $1.4 billion to $3.4 billion, depending on the estimate.  One analysis found that Trump’s single‑year gain nearly matched or exceeded the combined inflation‑adjusted net worth of all 44 previous presidents while in office (about $2.7 billion).

Some presidents were wealthy, but their fortunes were static or declining during office or not tied to presidential power.  For example, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Andrew Jackson were wealthy.  Their holdings, adjusted for inflation, were in the hundred million dollars plus range.  But their wealth did not grow during their presidencies.  Other wealthy presidents like Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm into an independent management group which did not benefit from his presidency.  George W Bush sold his interest in the Texas Rangers.  Both Roosevelt presidents were wealthy through inheritance.  They did not increase their wealth through their presidencies.  Presidents like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama did earn substantial income after leaving office through book deals and speaking engagements, but not during their presidencies. 

In all these cases, wealth growth was modest, occurred after leaving office, and was not tied to foreign investments or business expansion enabled by presidential authority.  No other presidential family has seen this level of coordinated, multi‑member enrichment.  The Trump family’s financial prosperity is historically unprecedented.

Conclusion

The Trump family has benefited beyond any financial benefits of any other sitting presidents.  Through the family-owned foreign real estate deals, crypto currency, branded merchandise, stock market trades, and government contracts, the Trump businesses have prospered like no other presidential family in our 250-year history.

We are celebrating America’s 250th anniversary this year.  It is a great time to remember the vision of our founding fathers by revisiting the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, our Constitution, and subsequent amendments.  It was a time when a King was making decisions for our ancestors without representation. At the time, England was operating under the Magna Carta, as a monarchy with a people’s parliament.  Though initially a feudal agreement, the Magna Carta’s core ideas were— due process, the rule of law, and the right to a fair trial. The rights guaranteed to England’s people were more limited in the colonies.  King George was more focused on the economic value of the colonies than concern for their rights.  Representation was limited, taxes were significant, and trade was highly regulated.

Now let us compare our current government to that of 1776.  Consider reading the Declaration of Independence and note our ancestors’ grievances—dissolution of legislative bodies, obstruction of justice, imposition of a standing army, transportation to England for trial, interference with trade, forbidding governors from passing laws.   Do they sound familiar?   President Trump has eliminated or hampered government bodies, ignored many judicial orders, created an army through the ICE initiative, deported immigrants without due process, established tariffs on trade, and interfered in state government.  It is also instructive to read the Articles of Confederation.  This plan was developed by the founding fathers in attempt to gain rights that those in England already had, through a union of thirteen independent states.  The Articles of Confederation were soon found to be lacking in providing for a unified central government.  Therefore, a constitutional convention was convened and a constitution was created.  However, the Constitution, as originally drafted, did not satisfy those who wanted to ensure the people’s rights.  So, they developed ten amendments to guarantee those rights.

Today, much of the work forged by our ancestors has been challenged by Donald Trump.  His actions are diminishing the rights guaranteed in those historic documents.  President Trump has expanded executive power far beyond the limits defined by our founding fathers.  Personal loyalty to Donald Trump is more important than adhering to our constitutional and legal norms. This is no different than King George!  Donald Trump’s actions are designed to support his economic and social agendas, not what “We the People” want (Polling averages indicate that approximately 2/3 of Americans do not support Trump’s initiatives).  I have previously written about Trump’s campaign promises– Make America Great.  His statements were like many campaigns promises over the past decades.  They were nothing but hollow promises to gain political support.  The political campaign worked and MAGA became a reality built on those hollow statements.

Americans today are no different than those in 1776.  We are being denied the rights that our ancestors fought and died for.  As we celebrate our independence from King George’s reign, Americans need to recommit to the promise of the American Revolution.  We need to hold our elected representatives responsible to the visions of our founding fathers and the documents that they wrote.  Midterm elections are upon us.  Use your vote to bring about a change in Congress!  America needs a Congress that supports the America that was dreamed of in 1776, not a modern-day King George.

There is NO factual basis for saying that Democrats—or for that matter, any mainstream American political group—are “America’s enemy.” Trump’s claim is political rhetoric, not an evidence‑based assessment of national security threats. It reflects a pattern in which Donald Trump labels political opponents as internal enemies.

Democrats are a constitutionally recognized political party representing tens of millions of Americans. They participate in elections, hold office, and operate within the same constitutional framework as Republicans.  Disagreement over policy is normal in a democracy. It does not make one side an “enemy.” 

Trump has increasingly described political opponents as “the enemy from within,” even calling them more dangerous than foreign adversaries.   This is a rhetorical strategy, not a factual assessment. It’s meant to mobilize supporters and delegitimize critics.

This kind of language serves several political functions.  It creates an “us vs. them” narrative, and it frames politics as a battle between patriots and traitors rather than a difference of ideas.  By calling investigators, journalists, or opponents “enemies,” Trump casts any scrutiny of his actions as sabotage.  His allegations heighten polarization, encouraging supporters to see compromise as betrayal.  This is not unique to Trump, but he uses the tactic much more aggressively and more frequently than most modern presidents.

Historically, labeling fellow Americans as “enemies” is a warning sign. Democracies weaken when political opponents are treated as existential threats rather than competitors within the same system. When a political leader labels a domestic opponent as an “enemy,” it’s rarely about literal national security. It’s about reframing politics as existential conflict rather than policy disagreement.  Trump is mobilizing supporters by creating a sense of threat—stolen elections, criminal immigrants, nuclear threats, WOKE, and DEI.  According to Trump, critics are bad actors, particularly the “fake” media.  He implies that his actions are normal and those opposed are anti-American.  Political scientists call this antagonistic populism—a style that divides the nation into “the people” and “the enemies of the people.”

This tactic isn’t new in American history.   For example, McCarthyism labeled political opponents (Socialists/Communists) as internal threats.  Nixon framed critics as part of a “silent war” against him. Trump’s version is more direct and more personal. The “enemy” is not an ideology or a faction—it’s the opposing party itself.  And to him, Democrats do not represent the core values of Americans.  Make America Great Again!

One thing that stands out in Trump’s post‑2025 communication style is how his political rhetoric has become part of his governing posture. In his first term, the boundary between campaign language and governing language was porous; now, it’s almost nonexistent. That’s why statements like “Democrats are the enemy” aren’t just rhetorical flourishes—they’re signals about how he intends to wield power.  When he labels Democrats as enemies, it’s often paired with threats of executive action, or accusations of sabotage and claims that the opposition is illegitimate.  That pairing is what turns rhetoric into a governing tool. It’s not just messaging—it’s groundwork for policy justification.

When a president frames one party as an “enemy,” institutions that try to act independently get pulled into the conflict. They’re either “with him,” or “with the enemy.”  That binary framing is powerful because it pressures institutions to choose sides.  Consider the Supreme Court immunity debates or the almost blind loyalty of Congressional Republicans.

The more he escalates the language, the more his supporters expect confrontation. And the more they expect confrontation, the more he escalates. This loop is part of why his rhetoric has grown sharper since returning to office.

When setbacks occur—legal, bureaucratic, or geopolitical—he can immediately attribute them to “the enemy,” which protects his image of dominance, reframes failures as sabotage, and keeps his narrative intact.  For example, Trump tried to bully a New York Times reporter.   Donald Trump attacked NYT chief Washington correspondent David Sanger when he reported that Trump was backing away from his own goals in Iran, using Trump’s own words to prove it.  Trump lashed out, “NYT’s lightweight analyst, David Sanger, says that I haven’t met my own goals. Yes, I have, and weeks ahead of schedule!”  The Times could have let it slide. But they saw the pattern. It builds, and builds… until journalists lose all credibility. And they decided to break it.

Charlie Stadtlander, ED of Communications responded.  “David Sanger brings more than 40 years of experience as a foreign and Washington correspondent for The Times — and a reputation for non-partisanship — to his work. His piece is a fair and thorough analysis of what the US military and American diplomats have and have not accomplished so far, and helps the country understand the state of the war and the president’s choices going forward. It’s exactly the type of analysis an independent journalist is supposed to be doing.”

Trump had an opportunity to respond. He didn’t.  THIS is how you do it. Bullies only win when people give in. The New York Times did not give in! American need to support every news organization that stands up to Trump’s attacks on journalists.  Demand the truth.

As Compared to Jackson, Nixon, and Biden

Andrew Jackson

Andrew Jackson was one of those presidents who didn’t just tweak the traditions he inherited—he bulldozed several of them and replaced them with a new model of executive power. If Washington, Jefferson, and Madison built the early presidency, Jackson re‑engineered it into something far more assertive and personal. There are some similarities between Jackson and Trump.  However, Jackson did not use the presidency for his own benefit.

Before Jackson, presidents generally saw themselves as stewards of the constitutional system, not as tribunes of the people.  Jackson claimed he alone represented the entire nation, not Congress or the courts.  Jackson used popular support as a political weapon, something earlier presidents avoided. And he treated the presidency as an independent power base rather than a modest executive office.  This shift laid the groundwork for the modern, personality‑driven presidency.

Jackson asserted that the president’s interpretation of the Constitution was equal to Congress’s and the Court’s.  This was a major break from the Founders’ vision of a restrained executive.

He introduced the “spoils system” on a national scale.  Before Jackson, presidents generally kept existing civil servants unless there was a clear reason to remove them.  Jackson replaced large numbers of federal officeholders with political loyalists.  He treated government jobs as rewards for party service.  This helped create the modern party machine.

Jackson openly defied the Supreme Court.  Earlier presidents sometimes disagreed with the Court, but they did not openly undermine its authority.  He famously refused to enforce Worcester v. Georgia, which protected Cherokee sovereignty.  He asserted that each branch could interpret the Constitution independently.  Using this argument, he used executive power to pursue Indian removal despite legal and moral objections.  This was a dramatic break from the tradition of respecting judicial authority.

Jackson broke with tradition by expanding presidential power, using the veto as a political tool, rewarding loyalists with government jobs, challenging the Supreme Court, treating the presidency as a direct democratic mandate, and building a mass political party around himself.

Despite Jackson’s abuse of his presidential power, he is remembered as a great president.  While his personality was based on personal confidence, he did not use the office for his personal betterment.  While in hindsight his policies may be questionable, his goals were viewed by him and his followers as best for the nation.

Top of Form

Richard Nixon Bottom of Form

Richard Nixon and Donald Trump share controversial presidencies.  Both are marked with scandal, impeachment, and divisive leadership.  The similarities end there.  Nixon was secretive and manipulative, using operatives.  Trump is brash, outspoken, and confrontational.  He uses social media to connect directly with his base and his critics.  Trump likes to be in the news, whereas Nixon operated behind the scenes. 

Nixon had to deal with the Watergate scandal where a criminal conspiracy, illegal surveillance, and obstruction of justice eventually came to light.  This scandal ultimately led to impeachment proceedings and his 1974 resignation.  Trump has been the subject of two impeachment proceedings and ongoing criminal indictments related to the January 6 riots in Washington, D.C.  He is also a convicted felon regarding his business practices, and the loser in a sexual assault civil case.  Trump’s legal challenges are broader than Nixon’s.  Nixon’s problems were contained within his manipulation of government offices to cover up the president’s involvement in the Watergate burglary.

Nixon was able to achieve détente with the Soviet Union, opened relation with China and managed domestic unrest without military intervention.  Trump has focused on “America First” using trade tariffs to gain deals with other nations.  He has withdrawn from international agreements, alienating many traditional allies.  Nixon’s approach to foreign affairs was strategic and secretive.  Trump’s approach is direct and transactional.

Both Nixon and Trump experienced historically low approval ratings.  Just before his resignation, Nixon’s approval rating fell to 36%.  Trump’s approval ratings have recently dropped to under 40%. 

While Nixon and Trump share scandals, impeachment proceedings, and polarization, they are very different in style, context, and legal resolution.  Although Nixon resigned in disgrace, his presidency was marked by many foreign policy achievements.  While Trump claims to have resolved numerous wars, and views himself as the “peace president” the state of America’s involvement in national conflicts makes his claims questionable.  Like Jackson, Nixon may have been a flawed person, but his interests as president served America.

Joe Biden

Since the Republican leadership has questioned the ethics of the Biden administration, a comparison between the two presents stark differences.  Did Joe Biden use his political clout for family benefit?  This claim has been investigated several times and will be examined later in this article.

Donald Trump and Joe Biden are very different people and ran very different presidencies.  Biden expanded the Affordable Care Act (ACA), increased subsidies, and proposed a public option to improve accessibility to healthcare.  Donald Trump has sought to repeal and then replace the ACA.  He has introduced the American Health Care Act, which reduces federal involvement and increases state control of health policies.  He has proposed direct payment to Americans in lieu of supporting insurance programs.

Trump has pulled back from environmental activism by withdrawing from the Paris Climate Agreement.  He has promoted fossil fuels such as coal, and one of his favorite sayings is, “Drill baby drill.”  He has also decimated the Environmental Protection Agency.  Biden, on the other hand, invested in renewable energy and implemented policies to reduce greenhouse gases.

Donald Trump has reduced the size and influence of the Department of Education.  His policies favor school choice and local controls.  Biden increased federal funding for public schools, expanded access to pre-school programs, and worked for student debt relief.

Donald Trump’s immigration policies have created significant backlash, as protesters focus on ICE enforcement tactics.  Trump’s stricter border enforcement has by all measures been successful in reducing the number of illegal immigrants entering the United States.  Biden tried to bring about progressive immigration reform but was blocked by the Republican controlled legislature. 

There are so many issues where Trump and Biden were opposites on policy and on governance strategies.  Biden emphasized unity, bipartisan cooperation, progressive social reform, multilateral foreign diplomacy, and post COVID economic recovery.  Trump has focused on removing government from regulatory practices, tax cuts, and America First.  Biden’s approach to economic recovery was just beginning as he ended his presidency.  The data supports the contention that the nation was doing better in job creation and GDP under Biden than under Trump.  Trump has done better in promoting wage growth, but the public has shown a lack of confidence in his ability to bring down the cost of living.

The claims that President Biden used his office to enrich his family started prior to 2019.  Investigations into these claims have been ongoing.  The House Oversight Committee has been investigating foreign business activities of Hunter Biden, James Biden and the involvement of Twitter in the Hunter Biden laptop conspiracy theory.  In August 2024, the House Committees released a report alleging impeachable conduct. 

The story presented is that James and Hunter Biden owned Paradigm a major hedge fund.  Hunter accepted a consulting job with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company.   Joe Biden was Vice President at this time.  At the same time, Hunter also co-founded BHR Partner, based in China.  When Biden became the presidential candidate in 2019 the Trump re-election committee, lead by Rudy Giulini, alleged financial impropriety and influence peddling.  A subsequent investigation by Trump’s attorney general, William Barr, could not substantiate Giulini’s claims. 

Then in late 2020, the New York Post reported that a laptop belonging to Hunter Biden had emails that referred to President Joe Biden.  There was much speculation and conspiracy mongering following the Post report.  To date, nothing was found that would implicate President Biden in Hunter’s business affairs.  To complicate matters, it was alleged by Alex Vindman that President Trump had tried to pressure Ukrainian President Zelenski into announcing that the Ukrainian government was investigating Hunter Biden. The Post story was investigated.  Former Twitter employees testified contradicting the claim. 

In June 2023, James Comer, head of the House Investigation Committee, released the committee findings on the Biden investigations.  The report did NOT find any evidence of wrongdoing or money directed from Hunter Biden to Joe Biden. Furthermore, Comer said he could not name any specific official policy decision by Biden that may have been directly influenced by foreign payments.  However, during this same period, the Justice Department accepted a plea deal where Hunter Biden pled guilty to federal tax offenses.  Many Republicans viewed the reduced plea as a “sweetheart” deal, claiming presidential interference with the Garland Department of Justice.  The final report of the committee found that the Justice Department had followed procedure.

Critics later focused on Devon Archer, Hunter Biden’s partner and fellow Burisma board member, to show that Joe Biden was involved with Hunter’s Burisma business interests.  During testimony, Archer acknowledged that Hunter had talked with his father over the phone a dozen times while in meetings with business associates.  However, Archer said that Joe Biden “never once spoke about any business dealings.”  He characterized the calls as casual niceties. 

With all of the allegations, but no proof, the committee nevertheless held an impeachment hearing in September 2023.  The committee claimed to have ‘uncovered a mountain of evidence,” but could not present any as the inquiry continued. In November, Speaker Mike Johnson indicated that there was insufficient evidence to initiate formal impeachment proceedings.  Despite Johnson’s comments, in December, House Republicans unanimously approved a resolution to initiate formal impeachment proceedings.  All Democrats voted against the resolution.  On December 12, the key witness, Alexander Smirnov, admitted that he had fabricated the Burisma story about Joe and Hunter Biden (New York Times, Associated Press, CBS News).

Claims of financial gain by the President regarding Hunter Biden’s Chinese business contacts have also been investigated and found unsubstantiated.   There appears to be no evidence of wrongdoing by President Biden.  Whether investigations into President Trump’s alleged illegal activities surrounding the January 6 riots or his retaining top secret documents would have resulted in convictions is unknown.  As recently as this week Judge Alien Cannon (a Trump appointee, whose decisions have been overturned by the Florida federal appeals court) has sealed the Jack Smith top secret documents investigation records.

There have been multiple investigations and reports that estimate the Trump family earned billions of dollars during Trump’s first presidency and during the first year of his second presidency.  That is far beyond what previous presidents or their families have ever accrued while in office.  The New Yorker analysis reported that the family made approximately $3.4 billion across Trump’s tenure. This includes billions of dollars from cryptocurrency ventures, $339.6 million from financial ventures, $270.8 million from hospitality, $116 million from media, and $277.7 million from other sources such as private jet rentals, legal fees, and merchandise.   These figures reflect a dramatic expansion of the Trump brand’s monetization during his time in office.

Reports from the Associated Press describe Trump’s second term as marked by unprecedented use of presidential power to generate profits for family enterprises.  For example, cryptocurrency ventures tied to Trump or his family pulled in hundreds of millions.  Foreign governments, billionaires, and crypto tycoons with interests being considered by the U.S. government, funneled money into Trump‑linked businesses. Trump’s children pursued global development deals, including projects in the Middle East and Albania. And Melania Trump secured a $40 million documentary deal with Amazon.  Experts quoted in the reporting describe this as a level of self‑enrichment “totally not normal” for a U.S. president.

A detailed breakdown from The Hill shows how Trump’s children (even grandchildren) capitalized on the presidency.  Kia Trump (Don Jr’s daughter) launched a high‑priced fashion line using the Trump brand.  Barron Trump earned $150 million through the family’s crypto venture, World Liberty Financial, and is positioned for future corporate influence (e.g., a potential TikTok board seat).  Eric Trump became a major crypto figure, co‑founding World Liberty Financial and helping generate over $1 billion in crypto‑related revenue for the family.  Forbes estimated Trump’s personal net worth of over $7.1 billion, grew from $2.3 billion (2024).  This reflects a presidency intertwined with private business in ways not seen in modern U.S. history.

Although Trump placed his assets into a trust during his first term, the trust was revocable (meaning Trump could withdraw funds at any time).  The trust is managed by his sons, who were simultaneously expanding Trump organization ventures.  The trust is nota blind trust, whichallows Trump to remain aware of and benefit from business activities.  The trust structure did not prevent Trump or his family from profiting from presidential influence.

The scale and openness of the Trump family’s financial gains during the presidency represent an historic departure from traditional presidential ethics norms.  The practice blurs the lines between public office and private enrichment.  The practices establish a model of governance where policy, branding, and business interests are deeply intertwined.  Whether one views this as savvy entrepreneurship or a profound conflict of interest depends on political perspective, but the financial outcomes are well‑documented.

The most dramatic shift in Trump‑family enrichment came from the crypto system, which expanded rapidly during Trump’s second term.  Trump publicly championed crypto, earning the nickname “Crypto President.”  Trump urged Congress to pass the GENIUS Act, which eases U.S. restrictions on stablecoin (crypto) operations.  After advocating for the bill, the Trump family’s crypto company began issuing its own stablecoin, becoming one of the largest issuers globally.  This created a direct conflict: presidential advocacy, then regulatory change, followed by private profit.  

Stablecoins are extremely profitable because issuers invest in customer deposits and keep the yield. This meant the Trump family captured the interest generated on billions in deposits.  Trump’s second term saw the resumption of foreign licensing deals, including in geopolitically sensitive regions such as Qatar and Vietnam. These deals involved sovereign wealth funds and state-linked developers, raising renewed emoluments concerns.

Trump properties — hotels, golf clubs, resorts — became centers of political activity, generating revenue from political committees, lobbyists, foreign delegations, administration officials, and Republican donors.  The presidency turned Trump hotels into pay-to-be-seen venues, where spending money at a Trump property became a way to signal loyalty or seek influence. This was a continuation of first-term patterns but on a larger scale.

The Trump brand became a commercial engine, with revenue from merchandise, media ventures, paid appearances, licensing deals, private jet rentals, and digital products (NFTs, tokens, etc.).  The presidency amplified the Trump brand’s reach, enabling the family to monetize political identity at unprecedented scale. Various media sources including the New Yorker, CNN, and Public Citizen have described this as the “merchandise machine” in varying printed words.

The most striking theme is the collapse of boundaries between public offices and private business.  The presidency itself became a marketing tool with executive actions, public statements, legislative advocacy, and regulatory positions.  All serve to increase the value of Trump-owned assets, especially in crypto and media. This is described as the “conspicuous integration of federal power, personal branding, and private profit.”

Across all sources, the pattern is consistent.  Presidential power amplified the Trump brand, and the Trump brand generated unprecedented private profit.  The mechanisms were not subtle: they were structural, intentional, and integrated into governance itself.  In summary, the Trump presidency has gone far beyond institution norms and ethical guardrails. 

One person’s opinion

Updated from an earlier post

There are many Americans across the political spectrum who believe that America has reached a crossroad.  The recent events in Minneapolis have resulted in two deaths.  The Trump administration is blaming Democrats.  The mass of protesting people blame the harsh tactics of the Trump administration in enforcing immigration laws.   Liberals and conservatives cannot agree on policy direction.  Should we focus on humanitarian issues such as right to free speech, freedom of assembly, and other Constitutional rights, or should we focus on making America great by removing immigrants who, some believe, threaten the American way of life.  Should we work on building our economic strength and hope for the trickle-down effect that Reaganomics promised?  Unfortunately, too many Americans fall into this dichotomy, failing to recognize all the options that exists between these two extremes.  The most unfortunate result of the focus on this dichotomy is that the real issues that Americans face are not debated.

In 2025, with the success of the MAGA movement in gaining political control, the promises of greater opportunity, prosperity, and a return to “true” American values appeared to be on the horizon for those who believed in the MAGA movement.  Yet, after only one year in office for President Trump, the prospect of a better America that he promised seems elusive.  Many middle- and lower-class Americans have experienced the cost of food and everyday living  soaring.  The Trump administration appears to be at odds with itself.  The Secretary of Homeland Security and Steven Miller are at odds over the Minneapolis shootings. Top Pentagon officials have resigned over the way that the Secretary of Defense has handled a variety of issues, including the “arrest” in Venezuela. The courts are being attacked for their stand on issues that many Americans see as Constitutional guarantees.  The Senate, which was established to represent the states, seems to turn a blind eye to the increasing interference of the federal government with states’ rights. Minnesota is currently in the firing line.  California and Illinois also had to deal with the attack on states’ rights.  It also appears that the federal government is attempting to impose the administration’s values on all Americans.  Attacks on private schools, using monetary blackmail, is not in America’s interest.  Cutting federal services with a “chainsaw” has not brought about savings.  Rather, various agencies seem to be falling into an ineffective quagmire due to lack of staff.   Even the polls have turned against President Trump’s handling of almost all issues except for border control.  Today’s polling shows a 56% disapproval rating for the President. 

If it were up to me, how would I go about fixing our now very dysfunctional government?  I would advocate for Impeachment of President Trump.  While not likely to happen given the lack of courage by Republicans in our House of Representatives, I believe an organization’s success or failure starts with the person at the top of the chain of command.  In the case of President Trump, I believe he has failed to show good leadership.  His picks for cabinet members showed little thought for professional competence, instead focusing on personal loyalty.  His attack on the economy has been a disaster.  His establishment of DOGE was a total waste of effort, which has caused serious damage to a functional government (which arguably does need serious reform). 

But since Impeachment is unlikely, and other Constitutional remedies are also out of the picture, I would suggest that the Senate start to focus on doing its job.  It was created as the voice of the states, just as the House was created to be the voice of the American people.  The Senate has, in my opinion, lost sight of this responsibility!  Too often state governors are left with the responsibility of maintaining the states’ rights.  Perhaps it is time to undo the 1913 legislation (17^th Amendment) that moved the selection of state senators from the hands of the state legislature to a popular vote, in essence creating another tier of legislators who are now concerned about popular votes rather than the welfare of the states they represent.  In the original design, state legislatures picked their senators.

The people’s chamber is also failing.  Members of the House seem to be more focused on their parties rather than on the concerns of their voters.  There was a time when representatives were picked by their neighbors and served the community.  Many gave up lucrative jobs to serve. Today many representatives view the position as a job, not a service to their voters.  As such, they are often focused on getting reelected to a position that guarantees a good pension after five years.  Campaigning has become a full-time business.  I would suggest that representatives serve at least three years.  Salaries should be commensurate with other local business leaders. (The Current salary is $147,000.)  The guarantees of a retirement salary after five years of service should be stripped away.  Perhaps then representatives would serve their constituents, not monied interests and their political party.

While I have criticized our President and Congress, perhaps the greatest failure has been the apathy of most Americans.  Until the ICE occupations, most Americans have not participated in governing the country that was created as a nation of “We the People.”  When only 2/3 of eligible voters bother to vote in presidential elections, there is a problem.  Worse yet, only 20 – 30% of eligible voters turn out for state and local elections.  To aggravate this problem, most Americans are not casting an “informed” ballot.  Of those that vote, many cast party ballots without careful consideration of the candidates.  It takes effort to know what the issues are and where candidates stand.  Complicating the issue is the problem of knowing which information is accurate!  I believe American education needs to instill a sense of government responsibility in our youth.  In addition, we all need to learn how to recognize “fake news” in contrast to what is factual.  We need to understand what is opinion and what is news.

While it would take years before the effects are realized, we might save this democracy if enough Americans hurt by the policies of the current administration get involved. Americans need to take the time to learn about current government policies, the Constitution, and our history.  This great nation deserves more effort than most have given it.  All Americans need to get involved by calling, emailing or writing their senators and representatives.  The power of the vote might get some Republicans to reconsider their support of President Trump.   Americans need to recover the government of “We the People!”