Trump Pulled in at Least $2.2 Billion in 2025, Financial Disclosure Shows ⁠49%

By Ben Protess⁠0% Andrea Fuller⁠0% David Yaffe-Bellany⁠0%

6/30/2026, 10:59:59 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Negativity Bias, and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 45.3% saturation with 272 hits. Analysis detected 1,436 faulty-reasoning hits from 601 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 50.1% and a BS Rank of ⁠49% (10,438 of 20,408 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 51.10% of the article peer group.

President Trump reaped a stunning windfall in his first year back in the White House, including about $1.4 billion from his family’s cryptocurrency businesses, a new filing shows. 
All told, the president pulled in at least $2.2 billion, a figure that includes other parts of his vast holdings, such as his real estate assets. 
That compares to a minimum of $622 million his enterprises pulled in for all of 2024, before he returned to the presidency. 
One of his biggest hauls in 2025 came when an investment firm tied to the United Arab Emirates bought nearly half of the Trump family’s main crypto company, World Liberty Financial, a transaction that blurred the line between foreign policy and private enterprise. 
Mr. 
Trump also collected hundreds of millions of dollars from sales of his $TRUMP memecoin and World Liberty’s sale of its own digital tokens. 
The results, detailed in Mr. 
Trump’s mandatory financial disclosure report for 2025 and released on Tuesday, pulled back the curtain on the president’s business operations. 
His crypto ventures, the report shows, are now some of his most lucrative enterprises, a remarkable turnabout for a man who once slammed crypto as a haven for drug dealers and scammers. 
The returns, which had been something of a mystery, highlight a conflict in the president’s crypto business: Not only is Mr. 
Trump a major crypto industry operator, but he is also its top policymaker. 
It is hardly the only issue to arise from having a businessman serve as president. 
The president’s family business, the Trump Organization, has also capitalized on Mr. 
Trump’s popularity in certain parts of the world, licensing the Trump name to properties in countries that are crucial to U.S. foreign policy interests, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. 
The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment, though in the past, Mr. 
Trump has noted that he is exempt from federal conflict of interest laws. 
Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, said in a recent statement that Mr. 
Trump “only acts in the best interests of the American public,” and that “there are no conflicts of interest.” 
Although the report released on Tuesday offered revenue figures for Mr. 
Trump’s crypto and real estate ventures, it did not reveal whether all of the businesses turned a profit or a loss, which is consistent with his previous filings. 
What is clear from the report, however, is that Mr. 
Trump’s crypto operation was a top money maker. 
Once an outspoken skeptic of crypto, Mr. 
Trump embraced the industry on the campaign trail in 2024 and started a series of ventures that have reaped enormous sums. 
With his three sons, he helped create World Liberty, a crypto firm that sells a digital currency called $WLFI. 
Last year, World Liberty marketed its coin to investors around the world, with 75 percent of each sale allocated to a Trump business entity, after the deduction of certain expenses, guaranteeing the president would make money even if the value of the token declined. 
The filing released Tuesday did not explicitly refer to the deal, but it mentioned unnamed investments that generated more than $200 million for Mr. 
Trump. 
The other major source of Mr. 
Trump’s crypto wealth was his memecoin, a novelty currency known as $TRUMP that he started selling days before his inauguration. 
He earned more than $600 million from sales of the coin, according to the filing. 
The coin’s price shot up briefly, before plummeting, with its price now hovering at $1.67, an 80 percent drop from a year ago. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 15.5%Ben Protess: 3.9%The New York Times: 1.7%Confirmation Bias15.5%This article: 8.8%Ben Protess: 3.1%The New York Times: 0.4%Anchoring Bias8.8%This article: 10.6%Ben Protess: 2.7%The New York Times: 2.1%Availability Heuristic10.6%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 8.8%Ben Protess: 4.4%The New York Times: 0.6%Hindsight Bias8.8%This article: 1.7%Ben Protess: 0.4%The New York Times: 2.4%Overconfidence Bias1.7%This article: 33.6%Ben Protess: 16.9%The New York Times: 5.8%Framing Effect33.6%This article: 7.3%Ben Protess: 1.8%The New York Times: 0.6%Loss Aversion7.3%This article: 7.2%Ben Protess: 1.8%The New York Times: 0.4%Status Quo Bias7.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 3.5%Ben Protess: 0.9%The New York Times: 2.7%Optimism Bias3.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 3.5%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 25.5%Ben Protess: 15.3%The New York Times: 9.4%Negativity Bias25.5%This article: 2.0%Ben Protess: 1.8%The New York Times: 1.3%Self-Serving Bias2.0%This article: 2.2%Ben Protess: 0.5%The New York Times: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error2.2%This article: 2.2%Ben Protess: 0.5%The New York Times: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias2.2%This article: 4.8%Ben Protess: 1.2%The New York Times: 1.1%In-Group Bias4.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 3.2%Ben Protess: 0.8%The New York Times: 0.9%Halo Effect3.2%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.5%Ben Protess: 2.8%The New York Times: 1.1%Recency Bias7.5%This article: 3.3%Ben Protess: 0.8%The New York Times: 0.2%Primacy Effect3.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Ben Protess: 2.7%The New York Times: 0.8%Ad Hominem5.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 4.0%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 2.5%Ben Protess: 0.6%The New York Times: 1.2%False Dilemma2.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 7.7%Ben Protess: 1.9%The New York Times: 2.7%Hasty Generalization7.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 3.4%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 6.7%Ben Protess: 1.7%The New York Times: 0.4%Begging the Question6.7%This article: 7.3%Ben Protess: 1.8%The New York Times: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.8%Ben Protess: 0.5%The New York Times: 0.3%Burden of Proof1.8%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 1.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 8.5%Ben Protess: 2.1%The New York Times: 1.8%Ambiguity (Equivocation)8.5%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.2%Ben Protess: 0.8%The New York Times: 2.1%Unattributed Quote3.2%This article: 3.2%Ben Protess: 1.6%The New York Times: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection3.2%This article: 45.3%Ben Protess: 19.2%The New York Times: 3.8%Biased Writer Voice45.3%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Protess: 0.0%The New York Times: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

601 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.3%attributed speech569writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 43 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAnna Kelly • 13 words • 0.0% coverageAnna Kelly • 19 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Anna Kelly

59%flagged-word coverage
32 attributed words100% of attributed speech83% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Unattributed Quote+59.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Anna Kelly: 59.4%59.4%Quote-first Misdirection+59.4 ptsWriter: 0.0%Anna Kelly: 59.4%59.4%Biased Writer Voice-47.8 ptsWriter: 47.8%Anna Kelly: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.