I struggle with this one. Politicians of both parties routinely use insider information, their public persona and political contacts to enrich themselves. It’s a pathetic interpretation of “public service” but that’s how it is. George Washington did real estate deals throughout his presidency. So Trump isn’t breaking new ground, but that doesn’t make it any less unseemly and distasteful to me. This is especially true when Trump acts as a spokesperson for his family businesses, even if they are in a blind trust (as they should be).
Why don’t we clean all this up and make public service a temporary stint and not a career? Oh, that’s right-Congress would have to vote on it. Of course, Congress could stabilize Social Security, pass immigration reform and increase government transparency. They do none of these things that all Americans want. They blame each other for everything, work you into a lather so you’ll send them money, and build massive wealth for themselves with our system of legal grift.
I'll go a step further. I'd rather see lifetime terms for congress than the election cycle nonsense that we currently have. Anything to incentivize actual statesmanship.
I've always thought the entire idea of a "blind" trust is naive. Does anyone really think such instruments are "blind" in the sense that the owner has no input or even contact with the people "managing" that trust? It's bad enough when some kind of independent fiduciary is appointed the manager, but here we have actual family members managing it.
That being said, I confess that I do not have a good answer. We can't expect someone to give up, even temporarily, the responsibility for managing preexisting assets just because they take office, even if it's only for a couple of years and not a career. But the complexities of our economic world in these modern times are such that totally avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is almost impossible.
Good comments. I was just such a fiduciary for scientists that worked for the government. It actually works pretty well, or it did in those cases. What’s different in Trump’s case is that his family is managing his wealth. As far as I know it’s all legal, but it still feels unseemly to me. Again, Congress does nothing.
We have a thing in the code of legal ethics or professional responsibility (Laugh if you want, it was important to me, and I was taught by a preeminent legal ethics professor) called the "appearance of impropriety." Even if this is all technically legal, it sure has the appearance of impropriety. And I say this as largely a Trump supporter (I am a JD Vance guy).
Good for you. Glad there are still people who have a sense of ethics. JD, who I also generally like, probably has a quieter but large stake in the government investment in AI with all of his tech-bros. While I think it unlikely neither Trump nor Vance is shaping policy primarily for their own financial gain, being in and of the business world it would be really hard for their stint in government service to be totally neutral to their fortunes.
Exactly. Taking it further, if I were the person in the administration regulating these entities and I knew the boss had an interest, how would I be objective (and keep my job)? I have a lot of respect for Jamie Dimon (I technically worked for him for a period of time many years ago) and he thinks Crypto is nonsense. I am not sure if it is or isn't, but it sure has Ponzi scheme qualities (as do many Wall Street investments to be fair). I would want them (the regulators) to be watching this stuff like a hawk.
Crypto may well be a Ponzi type scheme, but it has a long way to go to best the government ran SSA, which forcibly taxes workers for revenue, as opposed to marketing "profit opportunities" to coax investment. As far as expected ethics from politicians, dream on.
I'm a Trump supporter, but there is no part of 'influence peddling' that I find acceptable. Not from Clinton, Biden, or Trump. Politicians becoming wealthy in office is nearly universal and no doubt contributes to their poor approval ratings. Public service should be just that, not a guaranteed get-rich-quick scheme. Unfortunately, it would take the very crooks benefiting to rein it in.
No doubt "buyer beware" is in order. Corruption runs wide and deep in DC, unfortunate if Trump has decided to join the gravy train... although typically the grift comes directly from monies flowing into the federal government via tax receipts or borrowed monies.
this is niche, but as a chronic pain patient of 20 yrs, i find it really interesting that as a pharmaceutical company making questionable “opioid alternatives” ALT5 Sigma, just pivots to crypto financial services, as if that’s a normal thing.
"Is Trump using the presidency for personal profit? Yes, it's more than likely, but at least it doesn't involve funding a war, like Biden's scam..."Will investors get screwed, like the investors in Trump-branded gimmicks such as Trump University?' Again yes, more than likely, but at least it will be by personal choice whether to invest, unlike Biden's family scams that garnered tax dollars from the government with no oversight. It's not good by any means, but relatively compared to previous administrations, it's an improvement.
Agreed. It’s a scam but the alternative candidate was enormously worse. And at least this family’s scam is unlikely to end up with ICBMs being launched.
Not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I don't think elected officials nor their families should be allowed to enrich themselves through favors granted or insider trading information they may have access to. I don't know how you go about preventing it entirely. On the other hand, Trump is the most conspicuous person on the planet. So, it would be almost impossible for someone not to profit on something with his name associated right now. I would never personally invest in challenge coins or crypto currency based on Trump's persona; but there are those who will, and I supposed it is their risk to take. As a means of showing support, it is probably not any worse than previous President's signing book deals, organizing lecture tours. Mostly, it just amuses me to no end that the more Trump's enemies try to bankrupt him, the richer he gets.
Matt, great journalism……….again. Trump’s Yes, there are actually fleas doing stunts in the flea circus persona would allow him to profit from his Presidency. Worse than book deals before you leave office, probably so, but not beyond the pale for our now standard low-bar Presidential standards.
Whether it’s legal, right, or wrong is kind of irrelevant. It’s about the perception it exudes as one of receiving gain largely due to the office he holds. That is the problem.
It may be his son’s venture but it appears he is co-mingling his political stature into their business. That seems obvious, and, at the very least ethically I think it smells.
It's a little hard for me to see what he is supposed to do when presented with a bill passed by Congress. His choices are sign it or veto it; I can't believe the right thing is to veto it just because he arguably profits from it. Nor would I expect him to say, "Whoops! This is a good bill; I'd better get my family out of the crypto business and then sign it." The precedent for a hostile Congress to make the President dance around like a marionette by passing carefully-tailored bills seems bad.
(Sure, he probably proposed the bill in the first place. Maybe that's the problem: The President should leave lawmaking to the legislature.)
What a wimpy, mealy-mouthed article. Salzman has to actually ask? They say Trump gets away with his perfidy because he does it out in the open, but you’d expect a little more conviction from a financial writer regarding something so obvious. Salzman actually worked at Deutchsebank, the most corrupt bank in the West— either he was a sleep ar the switch when he was there or he is compromised.
I struggle with this one. Politicians of both parties routinely use insider information, their public persona and political contacts to enrich themselves. It’s a pathetic interpretation of “public service” but that’s how it is. George Washington did real estate deals throughout his presidency. So Trump isn’t breaking new ground, but that doesn’t make it any less unseemly and distasteful to me. This is especially true when Trump acts as a spokesperson for his family businesses, even if they are in a blind trust (as they should be).
Why don’t we clean all this up and make public service a temporary stint and not a career? Oh, that’s right-Congress would have to vote on it. Of course, Congress could stabilize Social Security, pass immigration reform and increase government transparency. They do none of these things that all Americans want. They blame each other for everything, work you into a lather so you’ll send them money, and build massive wealth for themselves with our system of legal grift.
I would add that term limits are hugely popular with voters, but somehow never make it to the floor to be voted on.
I'll go a step further. I'd rather see lifetime terms for congress than the election cycle nonsense that we currently have. Anything to incentivize actual statesmanship.
That’s an interesting angle I’ve never heard before. I’m all for incentivizing statesmanship!
I've always thought the entire idea of a "blind" trust is naive. Does anyone really think such instruments are "blind" in the sense that the owner has no input or even contact with the people "managing" that trust? It's bad enough when some kind of independent fiduciary is appointed the manager, but here we have actual family members managing it.
That being said, I confess that I do not have a good answer. We can't expect someone to give up, even temporarily, the responsibility for managing preexisting assets just because they take office, even if it's only for a couple of years and not a career. But the complexities of our economic world in these modern times are such that totally avoiding even the appearance of a conflict of interest is almost impossible.
Good comments. I was just such a fiduciary for scientists that worked for the government. It actually works pretty well, or it did in those cases. What’s different in Trump’s case is that his family is managing his wealth. As far as I know it’s all legal, but it still feels unseemly to me. Again, Congress does nothing.
We have a thing in the code of legal ethics or professional responsibility (Laugh if you want, it was important to me, and I was taught by a preeminent legal ethics professor) called the "appearance of impropriety." Even if this is all technically legal, it sure has the appearance of impropriety. And I say this as largely a Trump supporter (I am a JD Vance guy).
Good for you. Glad there are still people who have a sense of ethics. JD, who I also generally like, probably has a quieter but large stake in the government investment in AI with all of his tech-bros. While I think it unlikely neither Trump nor Vance is shaping policy primarily for their own financial gain, being in and of the business world it would be really hard for their stint in government service to be totally neutral to their fortunes.
Exactly. Taking it further, if I were the person in the administration regulating these entities and I knew the boss had an interest, how would I be objective (and keep my job)? I have a lot of respect for Jamie Dimon (I technically worked for him for a period of time many years ago) and he thinks Crypto is nonsense. I am not sure if it is or isn't, but it sure has Ponzi scheme qualities (as do many Wall Street investments to be fair). I would want them (the regulators) to be watching this stuff like a hawk.
Crypto may well be a Ponzi type scheme, but it has a long way to go to best the government ran SSA, which forcibly taxes workers for revenue, as opposed to marketing "profit opportunities" to coax investment. As far as expected ethics from politicians, dream on.
I'm a Trump supporter, but there is no part of 'influence peddling' that I find acceptable. Not from Clinton, Biden, or Trump. Politicians becoming wealthy in office is nearly universal and no doubt contributes to their poor approval ratings. Public service should be just that, not a guaranteed get-rich-quick scheme. Unfortunately, it would take the very crooks benefiting to rein it in.
Thanks for taking this on Eric.
No doubt "buyer beware" is in order. Corruption runs wide and deep in DC, unfortunate if Trump has decided to join the gravy train... although typically the grift comes directly from monies flowing into the federal government via tax receipts or borrowed monies.
this is niche, but as a chronic pain patient of 20 yrs, i find it really interesting that as a pharmaceutical company making questionable “opioid alternatives” ALT5 Sigma, just pivots to crypto financial services, as if that’s a normal thing.
"Is Trump using the presidency for personal profit? Yes, it's more than likely, but at least it doesn't involve funding a war, like Biden's scam..."Will investors get screwed, like the investors in Trump-branded gimmicks such as Trump University?' Again yes, more than likely, but at least it will be by personal choice whether to invest, unlike Biden's family scams that garnered tax dollars from the government with no oversight. It's not good by any means, but relatively compared to previous administrations, it's an improvement.
Agreed. It’s a scam but the alternative candidate was enormously worse. And at least this family’s scam is unlikely to end up with ICBMs being launched.
Big Trump fan here. Love this article. Hard hitting but written in a fair and factual way. Without all the hatred you see in the legacy press.
Not sure how I feel about this. On one hand, I don't think elected officials nor their families should be allowed to enrich themselves through favors granted or insider trading information they may have access to. I don't know how you go about preventing it entirely. On the other hand, Trump is the most conspicuous person on the planet. So, it would be almost impossible for someone not to profit on something with his name associated right now. I would never personally invest in challenge coins or crypto currency based on Trump's persona; but there are those who will, and I supposed it is their risk to take. As a means of showing support, it is probably not any worse than previous President's signing book deals, organizing lecture tours. Mostly, it just amuses me to no end that the more Trump's enemies try to bankrupt him, the richer he gets.
Matt, great journalism……….again. Trump’s Yes, there are actually fleas doing stunts in the flea circus persona would allow him to profit from his Presidency. Worse than book deals before you leave office, probably so, but not beyond the pale for our now standard low-bar Presidential standards.
Greg Collard wrote this piece.
Nope, it was Eric Salzman! I'm just the editor.
Alrighty. I would like to thank all involved in the writing of this extraordinary piece.
Oh, now if that's not "I didn't do it, it wasn't me, I want my lawyer..."
Somebody is flagging you as "Author" on this very comment. I don't know what settings need to change, but expect more confusion until they do.
Yeah, I think that just has to do with Substack credentials. I’m an “author” in our system.
My bad, I'm still learning to read.
Everything Trump does is to enrich himself, he doesn’t give a rat’s ass for the average American.
Whether it’s legal, right, or wrong is kind of irrelevant. It’s about the perception it exudes as one of receiving gain largely due to the office he holds. That is the problem.
It may be his son’s venture but it appears he is co-mingling his political stature into their business. That seems obvious, and, at the very least ethically I think it smells.
It's a little hard for me to see what he is supposed to do when presented with a bill passed by Congress. His choices are sign it or veto it; I can't believe the right thing is to veto it just because he arguably profits from it. Nor would I expect him to say, "Whoops! This is a good bill; I'd better get my family out of the crypto business and then sign it." The precedent for a hostile Congress to make the President dance around like a marionette by passing carefully-tailored bills seems bad.
(Sure, he probably proposed the bill in the first place. Maybe that's the problem: The President should leave lawmaking to the legislature.)
What a wimpy, mealy-mouthed article. Salzman has to actually ask? They say Trump gets away with his perfidy because he does it out in the open, but you’d expect a little more conviction from a financial writer regarding something so obvious. Salzman actually worked at Deutchsebank, the most corrupt bank in the West— either he was a sleep ar the switch when he was there or he is compromised.
Move along, nothing to see here...
Thank you for correcting the author of this piece.
Whenever there is a temptation for an insider to do something shady, then something shady will usually be done.
And if that insider is in a political office, he will usually hide behind his position in the government as an excuse for it happening.