- Trending
- Comments
- Latest
David D. Kirkpatrick’s investigation for The New Yorker documents something without precedent in American history: a sitting president and his family have extracted approximately $4 billion in direct proceeds from the presidency itself, and cryptocurrency made most of it possible.
When Kirkpatrick first reported in August that the Trump family had made $3.4 billion, the figure was shocking. That it has grown by another $600 million in just the first year of Trump’s second term reveals how profoundly presidential power has been corrupted.
As someone who follows cryptocurrency markets closely, I find the Trump family’s crypto ventures particularly revealing. World Liberty Financial’s USD1 stablecoin has surpassed $3.4 billion in circulating supply and become the fifth-largest stablecoin in the market Ground News, In-sights an achievement that raises an uncomfortable question: would this have been possible without the presidency?
Reuters reported that the Trump family gained $1 billion in proceeds from World Liberty Financial by December 2025, while holding $3 billion worth of unsold tokens. The family receives 75% of net proceeds when tokens sell and gets a cut of stablecoin profits. This isn’t entrepreneurship—it’s rent-seeking on a presidential scale.
The timing of the UAE investment is particularly brazen. Just four days before Trump’s second inauguration, an investment firm tied to the United Arab Emirates acquired a $500 million stake representing 49% of World Liberty Financial, with $187 million going directly to Trump family entities. The deal gave control to lieutenants of Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE’s national security adviser.
Months later, the U.S. agreed to allow the UAE to purchase hundreds of thousands of advanced AI chips from Nvidia, with a fifth going to Tahnoon’s own AI company. Senator Warren called it “corruption, plain and simple”, a remarkably restrained assessment.
Then there’s the Trump meme coin, announced three days before Trump took the oath of office. According to The Financial Times, the Trump coin and Melania Trump’s matching meme coin have netted the president and his business partners $427 million in sales and trading fees.
Meanwhile, the WLFI token has fallen 54% over the past five months, while dozens of token holders beg to be allowed to sell—but the project’s creators hold sole power to decide who can cash out and when. This is a pump-and-dump scheme with the presidential seal.
Kirkpatrick’s reporting on Mar-a-Lago reveals the mechanics of selling presidential access. The initiation fee has gone from $100,000 in 2016 to $1 million today, with annual dues of about $20,000. Profits quadrupled since Trump left the White House in 2021, with the profit margin jumping from 9% in 2011 to 60% in 2023.
The business model is transparent: pay $1 million, get proximity to power. All 500 member spots are now filled, with a waiting list. And why wouldn’t they be? Trump spent 31 days at Mar-a-Lago in his first 100 days of his second term, nearly a third of the period. Kirkpatrick conservatively estimates Mar-a-Lago has generated $150–175 million in additional profits tied to Trump’s political rise.
The Jared Kushner story represents perhaps the most troubling conflict. Six months after leaving the White House, Kushner secured a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund despite objections from the fund’s own advisers.
The Saudis’ screening panel cited “the inexperience of the Affinity Fund management,” concerns that the kingdom would bear “the bulk of the investment and risk,” operations that were “unsatisfactory in all aspects,” and “public relations risks”. Yet Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally overruled the panel.
The terms reveal the true nature of the arrangement: Saudi Arabia pays Affinity Partners $25 million annually in asset management fees, plus a share of profits, guaranteeing Kushner income regardless of performance.
Since 2021, Affinity has collected at least $157 million in fees, including $87 million from the Saudi government, but has yet to yield any profits for investors. This isn’t investment—it’s payment for services rendered or expected.
Kushner’s role in brokering the $55 billion Saudi acquisition of Electronic Arts in September 2025, combined with Reuters’ reporting that he “has discussed U.S.–Saudi diplomatic negotiations involving Israel with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman multiple times” without registering as a foreign agent, reveals shadow diplomacy funded by foreign governments.
Remember Trump’s first-term promise of no foreign deals? That’s over. The Trump Organization has struck branding deals in Qatar, the UAE, Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Vietnam, Uruguay, Romania, and the Maldives.
Since Trump’s re-election, the family has made at least $23 million from overseas name-licensing deals, with more than 20 international projects in the pipeline.
In April 2025, the Trump Organization announced the Trump International Golf Club, Doha, as part of a $5.5 billion luxury lifestyle project in partnership with Qatari Diar, the real estate subsidiary of the Qatar Investment Authority. Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund is now Trump’s business partner while he makes decisions affecting that nation’s interests.
Forbes calculated that Trump’s net worth skyrocketed from $2.3 billion in 2024 to $6.7 billion by the end of 2025, a $4.4 billion increase in one year.
Kirkpatrick’s $4 billion figure counts only cash already received, excluding unsold tokens, unrealized gains, and future payments. In 2025 alone, the business of the presidency generated nearly $2 billion in liquidity for the Trump family, primarily through cryptocurrency and MAGA brand monetization.
Kirkpatrick carefully notes he has found no evidence of explicit quid pro quo. But this misses the point. When foreign governments invest billions in your family’s businesses, the corruption doesn’t require a written contract.
The incentive structure is the corruption. Every policy decision Trump makes regarding the UAE, Saudi Arabia, or Qatar is tainted by billions flowing into his accounts.
The Constitution’s emoluments clauses exist precisely to prevent this. One restricts the president from receiving payments beyond salary from the federal government or states; the other restricts gifts from foreign leaders. Both have been rendered meaningless.
What Kirkpatrick’s reporting reveals is the creation of an entirely new architecture where presidential power, personal branding, cryptocurrency innovation, and global capital flow seamlessly together. The line between public office and private profit hasn’t merely blurred, it has been systematically erased.
The fundamental question is this: can democracy survive when the presidency becomes a profit center? When public office becomes this lucrative, we should expect more politicians to follow Trump’s model.
Why maintain ethical boundaries when you can make $4 billion? Trump is proving that emoluments clauses can be ignored, that conflicts of interest don’t matter, that the presidency can be brazenly monetized without consequence. Future presidents now have a roadmap.
Kirkpatrick’s journalism is exemplary-meticulously sourced, carefully calculated, conservative in its estimates. He’s documented the greatest presidential profiteering scheme in American history with precision and clarity. But documentation isn’t enough. The constitutional mechanisms designed to prevent this have all failed.
We’re left with a president who has extracted $4 billion from leveraging his office, with billions more likely to come. His family controls a major stablecoin backed by foreign governments.
His son-in-law collects tens of millions from Saudi Arabia while conducting shadow diplomacy. His club membership costs $1 million for access to power. And the response from Congress, regulators, and courts? Silence.
Kirkpatrick has given us the facts. The question is whether we, as a democracy, have the will to do anything about them.
Subsequent reporting has only sharpened the ethical concerns surrounding the Trump family’s cryptocurrency empire, particularly its ties to the United Arab Emirates.
In late January 2026, multiple outlets including The Wall Street Journal, ABC News, and The Guardian confirmed that a UAE-backed investment vehicle linked to Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, the UAE’s national security adviser, acquired a 49% stake valued at roughly $500 million in World Liberty Financial, the Trump-linked crypto firm behind the USD1 stablecoin. The deal closed just days before Trump’s second inauguration.
The White House has said the president was not personally involved and that the company is managed by family members. World Liberty Financial has likewise denied any connection between the investment and U.S. policy. Yet the timing has proven difficult to separate from subsequent developments.
Within weeks, the Trump administration approved expanded UAE access to advanced U.S. semiconductor and AI technologies an issue directly tied to firms chaired or influenced by Sheikh Tahnoon.
Senator Chris Murphy described the arrangement as “a textbook case of influence-buying,” while Senator Elizabeth Warren warned that crypto had become “a new and opaque pathway for foreign governments to funnel money to a sitting president’s family.”
Ethics experts interviewed by ABC News noted that even absent an explicit quid pro quo, the structure of the deal raises serious emoluments concerns because it places a foreign security official in a profit-sharing relationship with the president’s immediate family.
What distinguishes the UAE investment from earlier Trump-era controversies is not merely its size, but its vehicle. Cryptocurrency allows wealth transfer without traditional disclosures, valuations without public benchmarks, and influence without formal contracts. As one former federal ethics official told The Guardian, “This is monetized access redesigned for the digital age.”
Seen in this light, the UAE deal is not an outlier but a culmination. It underscores the central argument of Kirkpatrick’s reporting: that the Trump presidency has not just tolerated conflicts of interest, but industrialized them, using crypto as both shield and accelerant.
Kirkpatrick has given us the facts. The question is whether we, as a democracy, have the will to do anything about them.
