What methodology did the New York Times and Forbes use to calculate Trump’s presidential‑era gains?
Executive summary
Forbes produces its headline net‑worth shifts by reconstructing a balance sheet—valuing assets (real estate, companies, crypto tokens) and liabilities and then updating those line items when transactions, market moves, or newly available documents warrant changes (Forbes’ process is described in its deep net‑worth package) [1]. The New York Times analysis reported and tallied discrete profit events and revenue streams that the president and his family realized or could reasonably be attributed to the presidency—such as crypto token gains, licensing and deal activity—producing a separate aggregate “profits from the presidency” figure rather than a single updated net‑worth snapshot [2] [3].
1. Forbes: a traditional balance‑sheet valuation updated with new clues
Forbes’ approach is fiduciary in tone: it attempts to value everything on the balance sheet—real estate holdings, operating companies, equity stakes, liabilities and any liquid token positions—and then recalculates net worth when material new information appears; that process underpinned Forbes’ report that Trump’s wealth rose to roughly $7.3 billion after what Forbes described as a roughly $3 billion one‑year gain (Forbes’ net‑worth package and follow‑ups explain the method) [1] [4]. Forbes explicitly priced high‑risk, high‑visibility assets in its tally: it assigned dollar values to crypto holdings and to the market value of Trump Media, and it noted specific balance‑sheet moves—like paying down large mortgages on 40 Wall Street and other loans—that affect liabilities as well as assets [4] [5].
2. The New York Times: tallying presidential‑era profits and specific transactions
The New York Times’ public analyses and editorial board pieces did not present a single forensic balance‑sheet revaluation like Forbes; instead, they “round up all the ways” the president and family appear to have benefited financially during the presidency—counting income, token sales, gifts and deals linked to official activity—and aggregated those gains to estimate how much the presidency generated in new wealth for the family [2] [3]. That method produced cited figures presented as amounts “pocketed off the presidency,” an accounting of revenue and transfers tied to political leverage rather than a straightforward overhaul of every asset and liability on a net‑worth statement [2] [3].
3. Concrete inputs each outlet relied on—and where they overlap
Both outlets leaned heavily on the same observable inputs: cryptocurrency ventures tied to World Liberty Financial and memecoins, valuations or reported stakes in Trump Media/Truth Social, and transactions or debt reductions around marquee properties (Forbes’ crypto and company valuations appear in its breakdown; Times and other reporting spotlight crypto windfalls and new licensing/deal activity) [4] [5] [3]. Forbes turned those inputs into a unified dollar net‑worth update—assigning token valuations and company multiples—while the Times aggregated discrete profit events and gifts tied to the presidency to quantify a presidential “take” rather than to reprice every illiquid asset [4] [2] [3].
4. Why their totals diverge: valuation choices, illiquidity and framing
Differences are driven by valuation methods and framing: Forbes explicitly assigns market‑style dollar values to assets (including speculative crypto tokens and a contested valuation of Trump Media) and subtracts debts to reach net worth, while the Times focuses on cash flows and gains traceable to presidential influence, producing a “profits from office” total that can sit alongside—but not necessarily sum to—Forbes’ balance sheet figure; analysts also warn that large portions of reported wealth are in illiquid assets that are hard to convert to cash, a caveat noted in international reporting comparing the two estimates [5] [6].
5. Limitations, disputes and what remains uncertain
Both exercises rely on estimation: token holdings and private company valuations require assumptions about price and liquidity; some reported transactions are contested or incomplete (Forbes flagged uncertainty about percentage sales of crypto entities, and other outlets note unresolved questions about gifts or illiquid holdings), and different outlets explicitly acknowledge those caveats even as they reach bold totals [4] [1] [6]. Where sources do not provide documentary confirmation for a specific asset sale or valuation, reporting treats those as estimates rather than incontrovertible facts [4] [1] [2].
Bottom line: Forbes recalculates a full net‑worth using a line‑by‑line asset/liability valuation and labels changes as a year‑over‑year net‑worth gain [1] [4]; the New York Times compiles and aggregates apparent presidential‑linked profits and windfalls to quantify how much the presidency enriched the family, a different accounting frame that explains why the outlets arrive at widely different headline numbers [2] [3].