Trump grifting
Executive summary
Accusations that Donald Trump engages in grifting — using political power to enrich himself and his family — rest on a mix of documented legal findings, investigative reporting about post-election deals, and watchdog analyses showing revenue flowing to Trump-branded entities; defenders dispute motives and legality, saying the president has followed the law and separated assets in trusts [1] [2] [3] [4]. This analysis synthesizes reporting and filings to map where the evidence is strongest, where it is disputed, and where the public record is incomplete.
1. What “grifting” means here and where the evidence is clearest
“Grifting” in the context of a president means leveraging public office for private gain, and the clearest evidence cited by multiple outlets involves deals and revenue that increased for Trump-linked businesses after he returned to the White House, including foreign deals, licensing and cryptocurrency ventures that have been characterized as leveraging his presidential platform [2] [5] [3]. Investigations and watchdog groups documented revived or new international deals and payments to Trump properties during his time in office, with OpenSecrets tracking payments to Trump-owned venues and CREW estimating up to $160 million from foreign countries during his presidency, all of which fit the pattern critics call profiteering [4] investigations/crew-investigations/trump-made-up-to-160-million-from-foreign-countries-as-president/" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[6].
**2. Legal findings, settlements and past scandals that feed the narrative**
Legal and regulatory actions add concrete weight: the Donald J. Trump Foundation admitted to self-dealing and was the subject of a New York State attorney general suit alleging misuse of foundation funds to buy self-portraits and settle business obligations [1], while the Trump Organization and related entities have faced discovery orders, lawsuits and long histories of disputed financial claims that critics say reflect a pattern of self-dealing and aggressive dealmaking [7] [8].
**3. New revenue streams since the 2024–25 political cycle and why reporters call them “profiteering”**
Investigative pieces in major outlets show a blitz of new Trump-branded enterprises — from crypto ventures and meme coins to ETFs and international hotel licensing — launched or accelerated in the period around his return to the presidency, with reporting that these businesses have used presidential visibility to attract large investments and government-linked capital, including a reported multi-billion infusion tied to the UAE into a Trump family crypto firm [2] [3] [5] [9]. The New Yorker and The New York Times described these moves as “profiteering,” extrapolating sizable increases in family wealth tied to official status [2] [5].
4. The other side: legal defenses, structural steps, and media framing
Defenders point to legal arguments that a president cannot be criminally conflicted in certain ways and note that Trump placed assets in trusts rather than selling them into blind trusts, a distinction his team says complies with the law; mainstream supportive coverage likewise emphasizes policy outcomes rather than financial questions [3] [10]. Reporting shows Trump placed holdings into revocable or family-controlled trusts rather than fully blind trusts, a choice that watchdogs say leaves room for influence even if it does not automatically prove illegal misconduct [3] [11].
5. Where reporting is thin, contested, or legally unresolved
While numerous outlets and watchdogs present overlapping data points — tracking payments to properties, new foreign deals, and regulatory filings — much of the specific causal chain between a particular presidential action and a particular profit remains under legal contest or unanalyzed in the public record; courts and congressional inquiries continue to probe associates like Steve Witkoff and companies tied to the family, but definitive criminal findings tying policy decisions directly to private payoffs are not uniformly established across every reported deal in these sources [12] [5]. The record shows strong indicators of conflicts of interest and self-enrichment practices, but some claims remain matters for ongoing investigations, litigation, or interpretation rather than settled legal fact [13].