Could any of Trump's 2025 actions be considered grifting?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The record from 2025 shows multiple actions by President Trump that fit common definitions of "grifting"—using public office and partisan events to generate private financial gain—most notably large crypto token sales, lucrative private-access events, and policy moves that critics say eased scrutiny on benefactors; these activities are documented in investigative reporting and political watchdog claims [1] [2] [3]. At the same time, some legal outcomes and the limits of public records mean that labeling every act a criminal grift exceeds what the available reporting proves; ongoing FOIA fights, appeals, and partisan framing leave room for legitimate debate [4] [5] [6].
1. Concrete marketplace grifts: memecoin sales and VIP access that paid off
Multiple outlets and watchdogs tie the president directly to a memecoin launch and high-dollar buyer events that produced tens to hundreds of millions in proceeds for Trump and partners, including a May 22 dinner and a White House tour tied to top purchasers that critics say were engineered to spur sales of "$Trump" and reward large buyers—behavior that fits the textbook pattern of converting political access into private profit [1] [2].
2. Policy and enforcement shifts that appear to benefit insiders
Reporting and a congressional staff report allege systematic interventions by the administration to halt or downgrade federal probes into crypto firms and other corporate actors that had financial links to Trump or his ventures, framing administrative moves as regulatory rollbacks timed to favor donors and business partners—a structural form of grift because it substitutes policymaking for private enrichment [7] [3] [8].
3. Pardons, appointments and executive orders as transactional tools
The record includes examples critics point to as transactional: a cited pardon tied to a benefactor’s earlier support of a Trump family firm, plus executive actions—such as an AI order criticized for protecting cronies rather than consumers—that watchdogs and state officials interpret as protecting private interests under the guise of governance [8] [9]. Those acts, when coupled with allegations of friendlier treatment for donors, create an ecosystem where official acts generate private gain; the evidence in public reporting identifies patterns though it does not substitute for judicial findings on criminal intent.
4. Political opposition, litigation and legislative responses underscore the grift allegations
Democrats in Congress and advocacy groups have framed these developments as grifting and moved to respond: House staff reports and press statements branded the crypto dealings an egregious money-making operation [7], bills such as the Stop TRUMP in Crypto Act were proposed to block officials and relatives from profiting off digital assets [3], and Democracy Forward petitioned courts and agencies for FOIA records after the president sought a $230 million payout from federal coffers, calling the episode a potential grift and demanding transparency [4].
5. Counterarguments, legal limits and gaps in the public record
Opponents and some reporters caution against conflating political impropriety with proven criminality: skeptics note that not every controversial policy decision equals a shakedown, that historical disputes over inauguration and fundraising have legal nuance, and that some penalties against the Trump Organization were later modified on appeal—underlining that many assertions remain contested and legally unresolved [6] [5]. Importantly, FOIA suits and withheld records mean investigators and the public still lack a full paper trail on some of the most consequential claims [4].
6. Assessment: do 2025 actions qualify as grifting?
Based on the assembled reporting, several 2025 actions meet ordinary, journalistic definitions of grifting—monetizing access and influence, steering policy to benefit associates, and leveraging the presidency to enrich private ventures—especially in the crypto episodes that generated direct payouts and paired with private-access events [1] [2] [7]. However, legal determination of criminal grift requires evidence of intent and quid pro quo that the public record has not uniformly established; ongoing litigation, FOIA battles, and appeals mean the label "grift" is defensible as a political and ethical judgment grounded in documented behavior, while criminal or civil liability for specific acts remains to be decisively adjudicated [4] [5] [6].