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!”

“We the People” are supposed to be the government.  Our founding fathers made it clear that a democratic republic needed educated and involved people.  The earliest members of Congress were chosen by the people.  However, these early leaders also understood the temptations that power brought to various individuals and groups.  George Washington, in this farewell address, cautioned against political parties.  John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Alexander Hamilton, and others cautioned against the influence of monied interests.  As designed, the system would work only if “guard rails” were established.

Washington’s concern was soon disregarded, as the founding fathers themselves could not agree on whether to have a strong central government or a system of states represented in a republican nation.  This basic difference of opinion continues under our present political two-party system, with smaller parties playing only a tangential role. 

The concerns of John Adams and the others were also ignored.  While early representation was likely to be influenced by those already in local power and those with financial influence, at least the elected representatives did represent the districts that they served.  In today’s political environment, these same influences continue but have been distorted by the Supreme Court Decision in Citizen’s United and a lack of strong rules regarding lobbying efforts.  Large corporations now have a political voice.  Lobbyists represent not only individual monied interest, but large corporations with unlimited funds that are used to sway representative views.

The founding fathers created a democratic republic where the people were to be decision makers. However, monied interests were soon influencing elected officials.   While the problem of money in politics is not new, today’s PACs, and dark money operations, have eroded the power of the people in favor of those who can influence our political leaders with money and other opportunities, such as paid vacations, and personal favors.

Who (or what) has the greatest impact on legislation and our elected representative?  Companies, labor unions, trade associations, social and political groups, and other influential organizations spend billions each year to lobby Congress and federal agencies. Last year over 4.5 billion dollars was spent by 13,000 lobbyists. Some special interests retain lobbying firms, many of them located along Washington’s legendary K Street; others have lobbyists working in-house.  How can the average voter compete?

Organized spending by PACs and special interests have a great deal of influence.  In 2024 the biggest spender was Future Forward USA, spending over $510 million dollars.  This organization leans democratic and worked to elect Kamala Harris.  The next biggest spender was MAGA at $377 million.  Other major groups leading the list are political action organizations supporting both democrats and republicans.  America PAC (Texas), a group primarily funded by Elon Musk, supports President Trump with $196 million.  Americans for Prosperity spent $138 million, with funding by the Koch family supporting Libertarian causes.  Fairshare PAC is funded by Cryto, Coinbase, Ripple (cryto firm), and Andreessen/Horowitz (capital investment firm) at $112 million.  The most altruistic group is Preserve America, founded by G. W. Bush, to support American culture and nature spending at $112 million.

Individual companies spending large sums include SpaceX with contributions of $289 million, followed by Adelson Clinic spending $147 million.  Adelson Clinic was established to study drug use and abuse issues following the Opioid epidemic.  Third is Uline funded by Robert Uihien, a prominent ultra conservative, at $146 million. 

National Associations also spend large sums lobbying for their organizations.  At the top of the list is the National Association of Realtors spending $86 million.  They are followed by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce at $76 million.  The next grouping, which includes pharma, hospitals, Blue Cross, and the AMA, spends a combined total of $113 million.

There are many others that spend millions of dollars to influence legislation.  If the government was truly of the people, should these special interest groups be allowed to have such a massive impact on elected officials?  There is a reason that so many in Congress are millionaires.  Consider our key legislators.  Mike Johnson received over $618,000 from the American Israel Public Affairs Committee (AIPAC) in 2023.  and Lockheed Martin added another $60,000 in donations. Hakeem Jefferies received $866,000 from the AIPAC, and $64,000 from Lockheed.  Chuck Shumer is supported by Blackstone (investment firm) with $281,000 and an additional $235,000 from NextEra Energy.  John Thume received $122,000 from AIPAC and $96,000 from Sanford Health.  Dick Durbin is supported by Power Rodgers LLP (Chicago law firm) with $102,000 and Simmon Hanly Conroy (law firm) for $80,000.  For more information about specific legislators go to Open Secrets (www.opensecrets.org).

Perhaps the answer to why so many Congressional initiatives that might help the average American don’t get passed lies with the undue influence of big money!  We need to support efforts to get big money and excessive lobbying out of Congress!

Senator Slotkin and six others recently posted a video reminding our military that they can refuse illegal orders.  President Trump’s team is upset, saying that the President is the Commander-In-Chief and his orders must be followed.  He also said that Slotkin and her “co-conspirators” are traitors and should be executed.  Did they cross the line?  Can soldiers, police officers, and other line personnel refuse an order.  The Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ) is clear for military personnel.  And, as a police officer, I was taught the same material.  A soldier or police officer can refuse illegal orders.  The question is, what is an illegal order?  Equally at issue is whether the Commander in Chief has issued any illegal orders that can be refused.

Members of the military have a right, and perhaps an obligation, to refuse illegal or unlawful orders.  The oath that soldiers take provides a duty to uphold the Constitution of the United States, not a loyalty to the Commander-In-Chief or his subordinates.   The UCMJ does not define what “lawful” means.  The Rules for Courts-Martial say that an order is lawful, “unless it is contrary to the Constitution, the laws of the United States, or lawful superior orders that are beyond the authority of the official issuing it.”  The Rules go on to say, “This inference does not apply to a patently illegal order, such as one that directs the commission of a crime.”  Finally, the Rules say, “The lawfulness of an order is a question of law to be determined by the military judge.” That determination can be made only after a servicemember refuses or obeys an order, in a court martial or a war crimes tribunal.

Has the Commander in Chief or his delegates issued any orders that are unlawful?  To date, as far as the public knows, there has been no military action to ignore any of President Trump’s directives.  However, there have been numerous orders/directives, which have come under scrutiny by Congress, retired military, and the media.  The question yet to be answered is “If you were given orders to take part in any military actions or asked to deploy to support the ordered actions which are possibly illegal, what would you do?”

What action has the Trump administration taken that involve the military, and once adjudicated, could be found to be illegal?  The first action during his second term occurred in Los Angeles.  The military (guard and marines) were called to duty to support ICE officers.  The Posse Comitatus Act prohibits the use of federal troops for domestic law enforcement, with certain exceptions– primarily in the event of an insurrection. Thus, one has an arguable duty to refuse to obey an order to assist law enforcement personnel unless there is an “insurrection.”  The use of guard units has continued in operations in other cities.  The issue has met with stalled legal action. 

Most recently the Secretary of Defense (War) has ordered the Navy to attack vessels in international or foreign waters.  And this week, the Washington Post reported that the Secretary had ordered attacks on surviving crew members or passengers of vessels sunk at sea. 

Also, this week the President has signaled a pending invasion of, or attack on, Venezuelan territory, vessels, or nationals.  This action follows earlier suggestions that the United States might attack, invade, or attempt to seize control of the Panama Canal by force.  President Trump has also not ruled out “preemptive” use of military force against China, Iran, or other countries, or to annex Greenland or Canada.  International law prohibits the use of military force except in retaliation for a military strike or in the face of an imminent military strike. 

Under the Constitution, only Congress has the power to declare war.  Absent such a declaration, an order to deploy to in many situations is legally questionable.  In the above situations, Congress has not declared war. However, no U.S. military action since World War II, including Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan, has been the result of a declaration of war.  In place of a declaration of War is the Gulf of Tolkin Act which requires that the President receive permission from Congress to continue military operations beyond 30 days.   As for self-defense, none of these countries have declared war against the U.S., attacked the U.S., or is preparing an imminent attack.  However, an order to deploy is presumed to be lawful. The question of whether an order to deploy in the absence of a constitutionally required declaration of war can only be decided by a military judge at a court-martial.

The Military Law Task Force urges anyone who is deployed or might be facing a future deployment or order or is facing court-martial for refusing an illegal order, to call The Military Law Task Force for a referral to a civilian attorney or counselor to discuss their options. 

Did our six Congressional Representatives do anything that could be considered treason?  Absolutely NOT!  They simply noted that our military personnel need to know that they can refuse an illegal order.