U.S. President Donald Trump has been open about using the presidency in ways that benefit him financially. But the scale of his personal fortune growth while holding public office has drawn renewed scrutiny.
Reportedly, as millions of Americans confront steep cuts to health care and food assistance, President Donald Trump and his family personally enriched themselves by at least $1.4 billion during his first year back in office, according to an analysis published by The New York Times editorial board on Tuesday, the one-year anniversary of his second inauguration.
“President Trump has never been a man to ask what he can do for his country. In his second term, as in his first, he is instead testing the limits of what his country can do for him,” the board wrote. “He has poured his energy and creativity into the exploitation of the presidency—into finding out just how much money people, corporations, and other nations are willing to put into his pockets in hopes of bending the power of the government to the service of their interests.”
Reportedly, the editorial board described this as unprecedented profiteering and wrote that the figure already amounts to 16,822 times the median U.S. household income, while also warning it is almost certainly an undercount because many sources of the president’s and his family’s wealth remain hidden from public view.
READ: Americans bore the cost of Trump’s tariffs, German study finds (
“People who hope to influence federal policy, including foreigners, can buy his family’s coins, effectively transferring money to the Trumps, and the deals are often secret,” the Times board wrote.
The editorial board said Trump’s pursuit of wealth has been unusually brazen and argued that presidents of both parties historically took care to avoid even the appearance of profiting from public service. It added that Trump “gleefully” squeezes American corporations, flaunts gifts from foreign governments, and celebrates the rapid growth of his own fortune.
Reportedly, it pointed to one particularly striking transaction earlier this year, when an investment company owned by a member of the United Arab Emirates’ ruling family invested $2 billion into the Trump family’s crypto startup World Liberty Financial, just two weeks before the White House announced the UAE would be given access to hundreds of thousands of the world’s most advanced computer chips.
In all, since his reelection, the Times calculated that Trump has reaped at least $23 million from licensing his name overseas, at times culminating in what the board described as the appearance of blatant pay-for-play. In one instance, “the administration agreed to lower its threatened tariffs on Vietnam about a month after a Trump Organization project broke ground on a $1.5 billion golf complex outside of Hanoi. Vietnamese officials ignored their own laws to fast-track the project.”
READ: Trump’s ‘Board of Peace’ with $1 billion price tag draws mixed reactions worldwide (
The allegations raise broader questions about the boundaries between public office and private enterprise, particularly when global business interests intersect with national policy. Even the perception that official decisions could align with personal or family financial benefit can erode public trust and complicate diplomatic relationships. For many observers, the concern is less about any single transaction than the precedent such arrangements could set for future administrations.
The issue also highlights potential gaps in existing ethics frameworks governing elected officials, especially in an era when personal brands and international ventures can span continents. While legal standards may be narrowly defined, ethical expectations are often broader and shaped by public confidence in impartial governance. When those expectations are strained, institutions risk appearing vulnerable to influence.
The debate underscores the importance of transparency, accountability, and clearly enforced safeguards to ensure government actions are guided by national interests rather than private incentives. Strengthening these principles remains central to preserving democratic legitimacy at home and credibility abroad.