Recent weeks have shone a spotlight on the intertwining of business interests, presidential powers, and ethical boundaries within the Trump family circle. As a reporter who’s covered Washington for nearly two decades, I’ve observed how the lines between political influence and private gain continue to blur in concerning ways.
The Trump Organization’s global business footprint has expanded significantly since Donald Trump’s presidency. According to financial disclosure documents I reviewed last month, the family’s business dealings now span 23 countries, up from 17 in 2016. This expansion raises questions about potential conflicts that might influence policy decisions in a second Trump term.
“The concerning pattern here is the seamless movement between public service and private profit,” explained Noah Bookbinder, president of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, when I spoke with him last Thursday. “We’ve never seen this level of integration between governance and family business interests in modern American politics.”
The pardon power, one of the presidency’s most absolute authorities, has also come under renewed scrutiny. Data from the Justice Department’s Pardon Attorney Office shows Trump granted 237 clemency actions during his term, with an unusual 29% going to individuals with personal or political connections to him or his allies.
I’ve spent considerable time examining these pardons. What troubles ethics experts most is not the number but the pattern. Trump’s pardons frequently benefited individuals who refused to cooperate with investigations touching on his own conduct. This pattern differs markedly from historical precedent.
Trump’s adult children have meanwhile expanded their business ventures in regions with sensitive diplomatic relationships. Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump have negotiated at least eleven new international business deals since 2020, according to corporate filings I accessed through the Securities and Exchange Commission database.
The potential for these business arrangements to influence foreign policy creates what Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, describes as “textbook examples of conflicts of interest.” During our interview last month, Painter emphasized, “The American public deserves to know whether decisions are being made for national interest or family profit.”
Several deals raise particular concerns. In Saudi Arabia, where Trump maintained warm relations despite human rights concerns, the Trump Organization secured licensing agreements worth an estimated $120 million. The family also expanded investments in India while the administration navigated sensitive trade negotiations with the country.
The blending of governmental power with private business isn’t merely theoretical. My investigation found that foreign diplomats and business leaders seeking influence increasingly book events at Trump properties. The Trump International Hotel in Washington alone generated over $40 million from such bookings during Trump’s presidency, according to tax records obtained through Freedom of Information Act requests.
These arrangements create what ethics experts call “soft corruption” – situations where money flows to a politician’s family businesses without explicit quid pro quo agreements. The concern isn’t necessarily about explicit deals, but rather the atmosphere of influence it creates.
Some defenders of the former president argue these criticisms are overblown. “Every former president leverages their experience for financial gain after office,” said Thomas Fitton of Judicial Watch when I interviewed him for this story. “The Trump family simply has pre-existing business infrastructure.”
Yet the scale and timing make this situation unique. Presidential historians I’ve consulted note that no modern president has maintained such extensive business holdings while in office or expanded them so aggressively afterward while signaling intention to return to power.
The pardon power represents perhaps the most direct intersection of presidential authority and personal interest. When Trump pardoned allies like Paul Manafort and Roger Stone, both had declined to provide potentially damaging testimony about him to investigators. This use of pardons differs significantly from historical norms.
“Pardons are supposed to correct injustices, not protect friends or punish enemies,” explained Margaret Love, who served as U.S. Pardon Attorney under Presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton, during our conversation last week. “When they’re used to reward loyalty or silence potential witnesses, the justice system itself is undermined.”
Financial entanglements also raise questions about foreign influence. Records from the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network reveal that Trump-affiliated businesses received loans exceeding $300 million from foreign-backed financial institutions during and after his presidency.
The implications extend beyond one family or administration. The erosion of ethical norms creates precedents that future presidents might exploit. When I began covering Washington in the early 2000s, certain ethical boundaries were considered inviolable regardless of party. Many of those unwritten rules have now been tested or broken.
Public confidence in government integrity has suffered as a result. Recent polling from the Pew Research Center indicates that 68% of Americans believe elected officials put their own interests ahead of the country’s – a record high since tracking began in 1987.
As the campaign season intensifies, voters face important questions about the relationship between presidential power and private gain. The answers will shape not just the next four years, but potentially the ethical boundaries of the presidency for generations to come.
For the American democratic system to function effectively, citizens must believe their leaders act in the public interest rather than for personal enrichment. When that trust erodes, something fundamental to our political system weakens as well.
