US President Donald Trump made more than $2 billion over the past year, compared with his $400,000 presidential salary. Jack Goldsmith, a Harvard Law School professor, said the intertwining of the president’s business interests and finances made it increasingly difficult to separate political decisions from private gain.
Writer Christopher Caldwell and Goldsmith discussed the sources of Trump’s growing wealth during his second term, as well as the legal, constitutional and ethical questions it raises. Goldsmith said the case was exceptional in US history, noting that wealthy presidents in the past had generally kept their financial interests separate from the exercise of power.
Cryptocurrency and foreign funds
Trump maintains a broad and interconnected network of companies and businesses in the United States and abroad, with cryptocurrency emerging as the newest and most controversial source of his wealth. Trump’s 2025 disclosure showed about $1.4 billion tied to cryptocurrency, alongside substantial investments from entities linked to foreign countries, without specifying the value or naming those entities or countries.
Goldsmith said the issue was not simply whether the president was making profits, but whether financial flows from foreign entities could coincide with political and security decisions affecting those same countries. He added that proving a direct bribe or a “quid pro quo” deal was not easy, but said the scale and interconnectedness of the transactions warranted concern and investigation.
The constitutional framework and the limits of criminal liability
The legal debate centers on the Foreign Emoluments Clause of the US Constitution, which bars federal officials from receiving financial benefits from foreign states without congressional approval. The difficulty, however, lies in determining whether money received by private companies linked to the president falls within the constitutional definition of “emoluments.”
On whether a president can pardon himself, Goldsmith said the Constitution offered no clear answer. But he considered that question less pressing than the lack of clarity over whether Trump’s financial conduct constituted a criminal offense in the first place—one requiring a presidential pardon. The discussion produced no conclusive evidence that Trump had committed bribery or violated a specific constitutional provision.
Using power against political opponents
Goldsmith, who previously worked at the Justice Department, broadened the discussion by distinguishing between “kleptocracy” and the “weaponization of government.” He said the Trump administration had used executive-branch powers to help allies and punish opponents, potentially leaving deeper institutional consequences than the conflict-of-interest issue.
At the same time, Goldsmith said Republicans had legitimate grounds to complain about the use of government institutions before Trump came to power, citing the investigations and prosecutions targeting him, some of which were highly politically sensitive. But he said that did not justify the current administration’s practices, warning of a cycle of mutual retaliation in which each party uses government tools against its rival.
Calls to rebuild the legal rules
Goldsmith said the United States had been relatively fortunate in how its presidents dealt with money, despite scandals including the Teapot Dome scandal during Warren Harding’s presidency. After the Watergate scandal in the 1970s, Congress enacted oversight laws, and political and ethical norms emerged that presidents observed for decades.
Goldsmith said Trump had weakened those norms to an unprecedented degree during his second term after realizing that institutions had not effectively punished him during his first term. He proposed that Congress define “foreign emoluments” more clearly and establish mechanisms for prosecuting officials who violate the rules, while tightening safeguards governing the president’s financial interests.
Goldsmith concluded that the issue was democratic, not merely legal, and that American voters would determine in the midterm elections and the 2028 election where they stood on the relationship between power and money. He warned that using government against political opponents could become a rule adopted by both parties, deepening political retaliation and making it harder to restore trust in institutions.
