How do Trump's real estate holdings perform compared with peers in New York and Atlantic City?
Executive summary
Available reporting indicates Trump-branded properties and his broader real estate interests have seen a pickup in activity and valuation during his second term, with Bloomberg cited inside Newsweek saying the Trump brand drove over $10 billion in projects and helped double his net worth to about $5 billion [1]. Analysts and firms such as Cushman & Wakefield and J.P. Morgan stress that macro forces — interest rates, tax-law changes and fiscal policy under the Trump administration — are the dominant drivers for New York and Atlantic City markets, not individual ownership, and that policy shifts could both help and harm real-estate returns [2] [3] [4].
1. Trump properties: headline performance and the “brand lift”
Some outlets report that Trump’s properties and his personal net worth have risen since his return to the White House, with Newsweek summarizing a Bloomberg estimate that more than $10 billion in projects tied to the Trump brand have moved forward and that the president’s personal net worth roughly doubled to about $5 billion [1]. That narrative frames Trump’s holdings as benefiting from a reputational or transactional lift tied to his political position; the Newsweek story cites Bloomberg’s compilation to support that claim [1]. Available sources do not provide a systematic, audited comparison of individual Trump assets against specific peer properties in New York or Atlantic City.
2. Macro picture: why peer comparisons are driven by policy and rates
Real-estate performance across New York and Atlantic City in 2025 is being shaped largely by macro variables — mortgage and Treasury yields, tax policy, and regulatory shifts — rather than the identity of individual owners, according to Cushman & Wakefield and J.P. Morgan research [2] [3]. Cushman warns that Trump-era fiscal positions could push long-term interest rates higher — a headwind for leveraged real estate — even as proposed tax and deregulation measures could raise demand and prices in some segments [2]. J.P. Morgan projects nationwide house-price gains around 3% in 2025 while emphasizing a “higher-for-longer” mortgage-rate backdrop that will vary by market [3].
3. Tax policy and CRE: a structural tailwind or cliff risk for peers?
Commercial real estate performance versus peers will hinge on whether Congress extends or expands elements of the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act that are set to expire at the end of 2025, a central point Deloitte and J.P. Morgan analysts highlight [5] [4]. If tax breaks (bonus depreciation, pass-through preferences) are extended, owners and developers could see improved returns and cash flow, benefiting projects across New York and Atlantic City; if they lapse, many investors face a less favorable tax profile and lower relative returns [5] [4]. Available sources do not quantify how such tax scenarios would change performance for any single Trump-owned property versus peer assets.
4. Local markets diverge: New York’s luxury vs. Atlantic City’s gaming and resort cycle
Reporting suggests distinct dynamics: New York’s high-end and Manhattan markets respond to global capital flows, luxury branding and supply constraints, while Atlantic City remains more cyclical and sensitive to tourism, gaming regulation and redevelopment capital. Cushman & Wakefield and localized reporting stress that federal policy and interest-rate moves cascade differently across such submarkets [2]. Sources provided do not offer side-by-side metrics (cap rates, occupancy, rent growth) comparing Trump properties in those two regions against specific competitors.
5. Conflicting signals and marketplace perception
Analysts and industry press present competing viewpoints. Some industry pieces and opinion blogs argue a Trump administration could spur building and CRE investment through deregulation and tax incentives [6] [7] [8], while other analysts warn higher deficits, tariff risks and interest-rate pressure could increase borrowing costs and depress valuations in rate-sensitive assets [2] [9]. Newsweek’s summary of Bloomberg gives a pro-performance headline for Trump assets, but major institutional research firms urge caution: presidential policy effects are material but operate through macro channels and often take years to fully alter long-lived real-estate economics [1] [2] [4].
6. What’s missing and why you should be cautious
Available sources do not supply audited performance data — cap rates, NOI growth, occupancy trends or transaction-level returns — for individual Trump properties or a matched peer set in New York and Atlantic City. Newsweek and Bloomberg offer high-level valuation and project tallies [1], while Cushman, J.P. Morgan, Deloitte and others focus on policy vectors and market outlooks [2] [3] [5] [4]. That absence means any direct claim that Trump properties outperform (or underperform) specific local peers is not supported in the current reporting.
7. Bottom line for investors and observers
The best-supported conclusion in the sources is this: Trump-branded assets have received favorable financial headlines and may benefit from policy tailwinds reported in business coverage [1], but broader market performance in New York and Atlantic City will be determined by interest rates, tax-law outcomes and local fundamentals — factors emphasized by Cushman, J.P. Morgan and Deloitte — not brand alone [2] [3] [5] [4]. If you need a rigorous peer comparison, available sources do not contain the transaction-level or operating metrics necessary to produce one; obtain audited financials or third-party market data before concluding that Trump holdings outperform local peers.