The NYT report, published on January 20, contrasts Trump’s public claims with its findings. Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos on Thursday, Trump said his economic policies and tariffs had made America “great and rich again,” claiming to have attracted $18 trillion (₹16.48 lakh crore) in investment. However, the newspaper noted that while trade wars increased costs for US households, Trump’s personal income surged to levels far beyond those of an average American family, whose annual income is about $83,000. Trump’s yearly earnings were estimated to be more than 16,000 times higher.
A substantial portion of the gains reportedly came from overseas ventures operated by the Trump Organization, which runs over 20 foreign real estate and licensing projects. These include luxury hotels, residential towers and golf courses across the Middle East and Asia. In India alone, eight Trump-branded projects are operational or planned, including the Trump World Center in Pune, estimated to generate $289 million in earnings, and additional residential and hotel projects in Gurugram.
The report also details alleged links between US foreign policy decisions and business approvals benefiting Trump’s family. In Vietnam, a proposed $1.5 billion golf project in Hanoi received clearance after US tariffs were reportedly reduced. Similar concerns were raised over projects in Indonesia and the Gulf region. The Trump Organization has earned significant revenue by licensing the Trump name, including from projects in Oman and Saudi Arabia.
Cryptocurrency investments emerged as the largest single source of income. The NYT found that companies linked to the Trump family, including World Liberty Financial, generated at least $867 million in 2025. Trump and his sons reportedly hold stakes worth over $5 billion in the firm.
The investigation also highlighted fundraising activities, noting that nearly $2 billion was raised for various funds after Trump’s re-election, much of it from donors who later benefited from administration decisions. While the report stops short of alleging direct quid pro quo, it raises concerns about blurred lines between public office and private profit.
