Investigation Report: Donald Trump, Elections, and Business Conflicts of Interest
Donald Trump built his public image as a successful businessman, but his business career has also been marked by bankruptcies, lawsuits, and disputes with business partners. These controversies raise questions about his business practices and his approach to financial accountability.
Trump won the 2016 presidential election by appealing to voters frustrated with the political establishment, including many rural and working-class Americans. However, his economic promises and their effects on these communities deserve scrutiny rather than being accepted at face value.
A major concern is the potential conflict between Trump's private financial interests and his public responsibilities. Unlike former President Jimmy Carter, who placed his family’s agricultural business in a blind trust upon taking office, Trump retained substantial connections to his business empire, with his sons overseeing major operations (National Park Service, n.d.; Text of the Jimmy Carter Personal Assets Trust Agreement, 1977).
These concerns extend beyond traditional real estate and consumer businesses. Trump's family has also pursued cryptocurrency ventures, including the $TRUMP meme coin, launched shortly before his second inauguration in January 2025. The venture prompted concerns among ethics experts about transparency, financial influence, and potential conflicts of interest while the administration oversees cryptocurrency regulation (Howcroft & Heavey, 2025).
Taken together, these issues raise a fundamental question: To what extent has Trump used the presidency to advance public interests rather than private financial interests? Examining his business history, financial activities, and political conduct is essential to answering that question.
The Iran War, Oil Prices, and Potential Financial Conflicts of Interest
The U.S. war with Iran has raised additional questions about the intersection of presidential decision-making and private financial interests. In March 2026, unusual trading activity in oil futures occurred shortly before President Trump announced potential negotiations with Iran, prompting scrutiny from market analysts and lawmakers over possible trading based on nonpublic information (Picchi & Cunningham, 2026). Subsequent financial disclosures also showed that Trump's investment accounts continued trading oil and natural gas stocks during the conflict (Watson, 2026).
These developments raise concerns about whether individuals with advance knowledge of major military or diplomatic announcements could profit from market volatility. Because the conflict affects global oil supplies and prices, decisions about escalation, ceasefires, and negotiations can have significant financial consequences. Whether anyone deliberately prolonged the conflict or manipulated oil prices for private gain remains a question requiring further evidence and investigation.
The Border Wall: A Broken Campaign Promise
One of Trump's most recognizable campaign promises was to build a wall along the U.S.–Mexico border and make Mexico pay for it. During his 2016 presidential campaign, Trump repeatedly pledged that Mexico would bear the cost of construction. However, Mexico never paid for the wall, and Trump's subsequent claim that the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA) would indirectly finance it was not supported by the agreement's provisions (Farley, 2018).
Instead, the project relied on U.S. taxpayer funding, including congressional appropriations and funds redirected from other federal programs. By the end of Trump's first term, approximately $15 billion had been secured for border barrier construction through these sources (Kiely, 2020).
The distinction is important: Trump did oversee substantial border barrier construction, so the project itself did not simply disappear. However, his central promise that Mexico would pay for it was never fulfilled. The episode illustrates the gap between a prominent campaign pledge and the policy's actual financial outcome.
ICE Raids: Humanitarian Costs and Accountability
President Trump's aggressive immigration crackdown has led to increasingly controversial enforcement operations, raising serious questions about the use of force, detention conditions, and the treatment of immigrant communities. According to Reuters, federal immigration agents had shot at least 21 people, killing seven, since Trump returned to office in January 2025, as of October 2026 (Reuters, 2026a).
The consequences extend beyond enforcement encounters. An Associated Press investigation documented a rise in suicides among ICE detainees and identified cases in which records indicated delayed mental health treatment, inadequate monitoring, and failures to respond to warning signs (Foley et al., 2026). Meanwhile, recent shootings have generated public outrage and calls for independent investigations into the conduct of federal agents.
Immigration laws can be enforced without abandoning basic standards of human dignity, proportionality, and due process. When enforcement operations result in deaths, serious injuries, or preventable suffering, the government must provide transparent investigations and hold responsible individuals accountable. The central question is not whether immigration laws should exist, but whether their enforcement justifies the human cost and whether those exercising federal power are subject to meaningful oversight.
Tariffs and the Rising Cost of Living
Trump's aggressive tariff policies have raised the cost of imported goods and contributed to higher prices for American consumers. Although tariffs are intended to protect domestic industries and encourage American manufacturing, their costs are often passed along to businesses and households. A Federal Reserve Bank of New York study found that approximately 26% of the tariff increases it examined were passed through to consumer prices, including through higher production costs and reduced competition (Amiti et al., 2026).
These policies also undermine the advantages of international trade. Through specialization, countries concentrate resources on goods and services they can produce at a lower opportunity cost, then trade for products other countries produce relatively more efficiently. This process can increase total production, reduce costs, and give consumers access to a wider variety of goods (CORE Econ, n.d.). Although trade does not benefit every worker or industry equally, it can create substantial gains for trading partners overall.
Tariffs disrupt this process by making imported products and production inputs more expensive. While some domestic producers may benefit from reduced foreign competition, American manufacturers that rely on imported materials can also face higher costs. Ultimately, the question is whether these policies create benefits that outweigh the additional costs borne by American businesses and consumers.
International Trade Blocs and America's Competitive Position
The United States also faces the risk of losing economic influence as other countries deepen cooperation through regional trade agreements and international organizations. These arrangements can lower trade barriers, coordinate economic policies, and strengthen commercial relationships among participating countries.
Several important examples illustrate this trend. The European eurozone consists of 21 European Union countries that share a common currency and monetary policy (European Commission, n.d.). BRICS, an international grouping of emerging economies, includes Brazil, China, and India, among other members; Japan is not a member (BRICS India 2026, n.d.). Meanwhile, Japan participates in the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP), two major regional trade agreements from which the United States is absent (Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, n.d.; RCEP Secretariat, n.d.).
The United States' absence from these agreements is partly a consequence of its own policy choices. In January 2017, Trump withdrew the United States from the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the predecessor to the CPTPP (Office of the United States Trade Representative [USTR], 2017). The remaining participants subsequently established the CPTPP without the United States.
These agreements are not all designed to exclude America, nor do their members always share the same political interests. Nevertheless, they create opportunities for participating countries to strengthen trade ties and establish common rules without American involvement. When competitors enjoy preferential access to one another's markets, American exporters may face disadvantages in those markets.
The broader concern is that protectionist policies and withdrawal from multilateral agreements can weaken America's ability to influence international trade rules. Rather than relying exclusively on tariffs and bilateral negotiations, the United States must weigh the advantages of domestic protection against the economic and strategic benefits of participating in broader international partnerships.
Additional APA references
Amiti, M., Heise, S., & Weinstein, D. E. (2026). The anatomy of tariff pass-through into consumer prices (Staff Report No. 1201, revised September 2026). Federal Reserve Bank of New York. https://doi.org/10.59576/sr.1201
BRICS India 2026. (n.d.). About us. https://www.brics2026.gov.in/about-us/
CORE Econ. (n.d.). Comparative advantage, specialization, and markets. The Economy. https://books.core-econ.org/the-economy/microeconomics/02-technology-incentives-03-comparative-advantage.html
Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. (n.d.). Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership. Australian Government. https://www.dfat.gov.au/trade/agreements/in-force/cptpp/comprehensive-and-progressive-agreement-for-trans-pacific-partnership
European Commission. (n.d.). What is the euro area? https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/euro/what-euro-area_en
Office of the United States Trade Representative. (2017, January 23). The United States officially withdraws from the Trans-Pacific Partnership. https://ustr.gov/about-us/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2017/january/US-Withdraws-From-TPP
RCEP Secretariat. (n.d.). Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership. https://rcepsec.org/
Foley, R. J., Biesecker, M., & Lee, M. (2026, May 27). ICE detainees are dying by suicide at an “alarming” rate, an AP investigation finds. The Associated Press. https://www.ap.org/news-highlights/spotlights/2026/ice-detainees-are-dying-by-suicide-at-an-alarming-rate-an-ap-investigation-finds/
Reuters. (2026a, October 9). US immigration chiefs defend shooting of New York man, attack “sanctuary” policies. https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/ice-officials-defend-shooting-new-york-man-attack-sanctuary-policies-2026-10-09/
Reuters. (2026b, July 17). Factbox: The people killed by U.S. immigration agents during Trump’s second term. https://www.investing.com/news/world-news/factboxthe-people-killed-by-us-immigration-agents-during-trumps-second-term-4799048
Picchi, A., & Cunningham, M. (2026, March 25). Oil trades surged just before Trump's post on Iran talks. Some experts are suspicious. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/insider-trading-oil-futures-trump-iran-post/
CBS News
Watson, K. (2026, August 29). Trump's oil and gas stock trades continued during Iran war, filings show. CBS News. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trumps-oil-gas-stock-trades-iran-war/
CBS News
Howcroft, E., & Heavey, S. (2025, January 20). Trump's new crypto coin sparks ethics concerns. Reuters. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trumps-new-crypto-coin-sparks-ethics-concerns-2025-01-20/
National Park Service. (n.d.). The mighty peanut. U.S. Department of the Interior. https://www.nps.gov/jica/planyourvisit/the-mighty-peanut.htm
Text of the Jimmy Carter Personal Assets Trust Agreement. (1977, January 20). The American Presidency Project. https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/text-the-jimmy-carter-personal-assets-trust-agreement
Remember, silence can be deadly. We must remain resilient and stand firm in defense of our freedom. Let us not repeat the mistakes of the past by turning a blind eye to abuses of power. We must hold our leaders accountable and demand honesty, integrity, and truth—values that should be sacred to us all. After all, the Bible itself commands us: “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” No leader should ever stand above the truth.
