The disclosure last week that Donald Trump’s family increased its wealth by $1.4 billion in 2025, largely through the dubious cryptocurrency market, was stunning in its dollar amount, but not surprising in actuality. Trump is all about deals and his transactional approach always benefits his own pocket rather than the American people.  Example one: he took his first flight on the “new” Air Force One the same week his financial disclosure was filed. Readers may recall that the Qatari royal family owned the jet that the Emirate gifted to him last year. The expense to retrofit the royal plane is classified, but the Secretary of the Air Force told Congress last year that the taxpayer-funded cost would be less than $400 million. Whatever the cost to American taxpayers, the plane reflects Trump’s love of luxury accommodations, gilded surfaces, and using other people’s money to satisfy his unending appetite for self-aggrandizement. Trump also indicated that the new jet will become a feature of his future presidential library so it looks like future presidents will not have access to his version of Air Force One. 

The White House’s insistence that Mr. Trump and his family have no conflicts of interest is laughable. Trump’s administration regulates cryptocurrency policy and, at the beginning of his second term, he issued an executive order that relaxed the rules for the crypto industry. Some analysts noted that Trump made as much money in the crypto market as many of his investors lost, an estimated $2.3 billion on both ends. Example two: unlike previous presidents, Mr. Trump has not put his business interests into a blind trust for management. Instead, his family businesses are controlled by his sons, Eric and Don, Jr., who accompany him on many official trips as well as working private investments with other nations’ leaders. Mr. Trump has monetized the White House – selling Teslas on the mansion’s driveway, hosting a UCF cage fight for his birthday, rumors of hefty fees for presidential pardons, and selling sneakers, bibles, and other merchandise under the guise of patriotism. There seems to be no lack of appetite for grift and no concern for ordinary Americans’ financial challenges.  

Financial disclosure forms are not new, but Trump’s disclosures are unprecedented in their sheer breadth, providing plenty of food for future analysis and potential congressional investigations. Most jurisdictions require some version of annual financial disclosures by elected and appointed officials. The Virginia Financial Disclosure Statement covers property ownership, business interests, debts and rental income, stock investments, real or potential conflicts of interest in Fairfax County or the Commonwealth of Virginia, and lists of gifts, including meals and travel. During my 28 years on the Fairfax County Board of Supervisors (BOS), most of my filings were fairly dull, but the “gifts” portion meant listing the large engraved ceremonial scissors used for a Nationals ribbon-cutting at Mason District Park and floral bouquets and a fruit basket I received after a hospitalization.  

Financial disclosures may, or may not, identify real or perceived conflicts of interest. In Virginia, the Conflicts of Interest Act (COIA) provides guidelines, and the COIA Council can be helpful in ascertaining potential conflicts, but the final decision rests with the elected official and his or her own moral code. That lesson in integrity resonated with me decades ago when, in the 1970s, Idaho Senator and Mrs. Frank Church sold her family’s beautiful and remote Robinson Bar ranch because it lay in an area that became the 756,000-acre Sawtooth National Recreation Area, legislation that was sponsored by Church. In her memoirs, Bethine Church noted that “we sacrificed our beloved ranch for peanuts ($140,000 for 123 acres), well before the legislation passed.” The ranch had been homesteaded by her parents in 1917; Bethine and Frank were married on the ranch’s front porch in 1947, and their sons and extended family had enjoyed summers in its wilderness. It was a difficult and emotional decision but it “reassured Idaho of his integrity,” as Bethine put it. Where is that standard today?