Crypto and stock stakes: key takeaways from Trump’s financial disclosures ⁠47%

By Oliver Holmes⁠0%

7/1/2026, 1:30:20 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 23 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Post Hoc (False Cause), and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 35.2% saturation with 211 hits. Analysis detected 1,359 faulty-reasoning hits from 600 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠47% (11,387 of 21,230 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 53.60% of the article peer group.

Donald Trump’s money-making ventures enriched him by more than $2bn last year, according to newly released financial disclosures. 
The revenue was supercharged by the Trump family’s crypto projects, with the documents showing the US president made more than $1bn (£0.76bn) from crypto – an industry he has sought to deregulate. 
Here are five key takeaways from close to 1,000 pages of Trump’s financial disclosures: 
1. 
Trump played the crypto game while also making the rules 
The US president now gets most of his income from digital assets that have benefited from his own policies. 
After returning to office, Trump reversed the Biden administration’s tough stance on the crypto industry with new rules, saying he wanted the US to be the “crypto capital of the world”. 
In short, he has been a serious player in a market where he is also a rule-maker. 
Trump took in nearly $1.2bn from his crypto businesses last year, the documents revealed, including hundreds of millions from sales of souvenir-type coins stamped with his face. 
Others who bought the Trump coins have seen significant losses as their value has plummeted after initial hyped sales. 
2. 
A grand total of $2.2bn 
When accounting for everything – from investments to real estate to royalties to Trump own-brand cologne sales (yes, that is real) – the US president made at least $2.2bn in 2025. 
In comparison, in 2024 his enterprises pulled in $622m, before he returned to the presidency. 
Previous US presidents have made public efforts to show they would not personally profit from business during their time in office, including putting investments into blind trusts. 
For his second term, Trump has put his sons in charge of his business. 
3. 
Trump has been buying stock while in office 
There is no getting around it – Trump has a personal stake in hundreds of companies, from big tech in Silicon Valley to Papa John’s pizza, Netflix and Victoria’s Secret. 
One of the reasons Tuesday’s disclosure is so long, at 927 pages, is because the president has been actively buying stocks, and the US Office of Government Ethics names them all. 
The document is publicly released due to a 1978 law that requires presidents and vice-presidents to disclose their income, assets and financial interests. 
4. 
The president maintains a global network of business interests 
While the White House and Trump family dismiss any suggestions about conflicts of interest, the president has clear personal financial stakes across the world. 
This is significant as Trump is operating in two roles: as a president and as a private citizen. 
As president he is negotiating with foreign governments on a range of issues including tariffs and military aid. 
But he also has private business interests that critics say could sway his thinking, including hotels and real estate in the Gulf, Europe and Asia. 
For example, Trump’s crypto business benefited from a $500m payment from a state-linked firm in the United Arab Emirates, which bought a stake in World Liberty Financial – the Trump family crypto company – days before he reentered office. 
The UAE has a complicated diplomatic relationship with the US, including on sensitive issues such as Israel, Palestine and Iran. 
5. 
Trump is technically a retired pensioner 
The 80-year-old might have the most powerful position on the planet but the filings show he is also, at least on paper, a retired pensioner. 
The former host of The Apprentice takes monthly pension withdrawals from the Screen Actors Guild. 
He also takes payments from the American Federation of Television and Radio Artists retirement fund. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 19.0%Oliver Holmes: 4.8%the Guardian: 3.7%Confirmation Bias19.0%This article: 0.8%Oliver Holmes: 2.1%the Guardian: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.8%This article: 9.3%Oliver Holmes: 2.3%the Guardian: 3.1%Availability Heuristic9.3%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 2.3%Oliver Holmes: 0.6%the Guardian: 1.6%Overconfidence Bias2.3%This article: 12.3%Oliver Holmes: 9.3%the Guardian: 6.1%Framing Effect12.3%This article: 3.2%Oliver Holmes: 0.8%the Guardian: 0.6%Loss Aversion3.2%This article: 7.5%Oliver Holmes: 1.9%the Guardian: 0.6%Status Quo Bias7.5%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 2.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 34.8%Oliver Holmes: 18.1%the Guardian: 10.4%Negativity Bias34.8%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Oliver Holmes: 1.0%the Guardian: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error4.2%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 3.2%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.0%Oliver Holmes: 3.3%the Guardian: 1.1%Recency Bias13.0%This article: 1.3%Oliver Holmes: 0.3%the Guardian: 0.4%Primacy Effect1.3%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 4.0%Oliver Holmes: 1.0%the Guardian: 2.0%Ad Hominem4.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 13.5%Oliver Holmes: 3.4%the Guardian: 3.8%Appeal to Authority13.5%This article: 3.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.8%the Guardian: 1.7%False Dilemma3.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.0%Oliver Holmes: 1.3%the Guardian: 6.3%Hasty Generalization5.0%This article: 3.3%Oliver Holmes: 0.8%the Guardian: 0.2%Red Herring3.3%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 1.0%the Guardian: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 3.2%Oliver Holmes: 0.8%the Guardian: 0.9%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 27.8%Oliver Holmes: 9.4%the Guardian: 2.8%Post Hoc (False Cause)27.8%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.2%Oliver Holmes: 0.8%the Guardian: 3.1%Anecdotal3.2%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 9.7%Oliver Holmes: 2.4%the Guardian: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)9.7%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.3%Oliver Holmes: 0.6%the Guardian: 0.1%Special Pleading2.3%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.6%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 1.3%the Guardian: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 35.2%Oliver Holmes: 14.7%the Guardian: 10.4%Biased Writer Voice35.2%This article: 8.5%Oliver Holmes: 2.1%the Guardian: 1.8%Indoctrination8.5%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 1.2%the Guardian: 3.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Oliver Holmes: 0.0%the Guardian: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

600 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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