The Trump family is under investigation for alleged corruption in their business dealings. They don’t stop there, continuing to use their political power to increase their profits. Critics, including former Obama administration official Ben Rhodes, argue that the Trumps’ approach constitutes “nothing more than an old-fashioned grift tethered to a superpower.” In the past year, the family’s business dealings have accelerated significantly, with Donald Trump’s sons, Don Jr. and Eric, leading a global deal-making blitz that has drawn attention for its scale and implications.
From the beginning of this year, the Trumps claimed an incredible surge in income. It went up 17-fold, from $51 million to $864 million. Such monumental financial success raises serious concerns about the legality and ethics of their business practices. It may be most worrisome, though, for its apparent timing with the political machinations of Donald Trump. The other business that Trump opened—World Liberty Financial—didn’t even start until two months before Trump announced his re-election bid. He trumpeted this effort as raising America up to be “the crypto capital of the world.”
The family’s fortune creation is clear via their recent forays overseas. During May’s groundbreaking ceremony for a new $1.5 billion golf resort in Vietnam, Eric Trump was celebrated with gold and silver confetti, highlighting the family’s increasing visibility in high-value international projects. Yet their deep connections with the Gulf’s petro-monarchies make them even more powerful players in business and politics. In this realm, personal and state interests often become inextricably linked.
Allegations of a “pay to play” system have begun to appear. Kristofer Harrison told us that members of the Trump family have enriched themselves through arrangements that disproportionately benefit those who make money palatable to them. “Trump has made authoritarians’ wildest dreams come true,” Harrison stated, reflecting concerns over how the Trumps’ business operations may undermine democratic principles.
The tangled web between the Trump family and foreign leaders has been suspicious. Aleksandar Vučić, Serbia’s authoritarian leader, allegedly looked for partners among the Trumps as he felt his way through the domestic turmoil. At the same time, the Saudi government has bankrolled much of Vučić’s projects, showing just one way the Trumps could affect international relations for their own benefit.
In early May, negotiations between Donald Trump’s chief trade negotiator and Vietnamese officials hinted at an attempt to maneuver newly imposed trade tariffs. Vietnam went from facing an average of 46% tariffs steeped on the country, before negotiating a favorable settlement with the U.S. This created a serious risk that Trump’s personal business interests would affect the negotiations.
Trump had granted the United Arab Emirates (UAE) access to these highly sought-after artificial intelligence chips. This latest move shows his willingness to combine national security concerns with the business interests of his family. The UAE’s state-owned fund MGX was involved in a significant $2 billion deal with Binance, where Trump claimed ignorance about Zhao’s involvement when questioned about the cryptocurrency figure’s pardon.
As these developments unfold, the question remains: Are the Trumps prioritizing their financial interests over ethical governance?
“I gave him a pardon at the request of a lot of good people.” – Donald Trump
Rhodes cautioned against the long-term implications of this tangled relationship between business and politics. “It’s incalculable what damage we are not seeing,” he remarked, emphasizing the potential risks to democratic integrity.
To counter the encroaching public scrutiny, surviving family members have still fought to distance themselves from political affairs. Eric Trump defended their business operations by stating, “Nothing I do has anything to do with the White House.” Jared Kushner framed the situation differently: “What people call conflicts of interest… I call experience and trusted relationships that we have throughout the world.”
Despite such settled claims, critics contend that these public-private relationships always create corrosive conflicts of interest driving anticompetitive and anti-democratic governance. Kimberly Kay Hoang articulated the risk succinctly: “You scratch my back, I scratch yours; we are going to do these deals and there are going to be a small number of people who are going to benefit.”
Yet as the commercial ventures of the Trump family go global, these questions and more about ethical governance and accountability remain an open question. The complicated relationship between government and industry leads to passionate disagreements. Can these relationships continue to flourish without jeopardizing public trust?