Trump's Self-Dealing Is More Alarming Than You Think
President Trump has more than doubled his personal wealth since starting his 2024 election campaign. Billions of foreign dollars have flowed into his family's real estate and crypto ventures. A plane that doubles as a 'palace in the sky' has been given for Mr. Trump's use by the government of Qatar.
It is easy to dismiss this as just a bigger and more brazen version of the self-dealing we saw during the first Trump term. But it poses a more fundamental danger. Our political system is being transformed into something that no longer serves the people. Indeed, the United States is seemingly becoming just another country with a corrupt strongman personalizing and profiting from power.
Vladimir Putin pursued this playbook in Russia. The news media was forced into the hands of his political allies. Natural resources and lucrative contracts were turned over to his associates. Mr. Putin reportedly became one of the world's richest men while creating a system in which the nation's interests became indistinguishable from its leader's.
This fusion of political and personal interests was on display in Russia's 2014 annexation of Crimea. As Mr. Putin's approval ratings soared, so did the wealth of his associates. To take just one example, his former judo partner — Arkady Rotenberg — received a contract valued at over $3 billion to build a bridge linking Russia and Crimea. Corruption allowed Mr. Putin to consolidate power, and power facilitated ever more corruption.
Hungary's prime minister, Viktor Orban, a MAGA favorite, has pursued this playbook on a smaller scale, leveraging the power of the state to marginalize opponents while his associates became ostentatiously wealthy. As with Mr. Trump and the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, this includes Mr. Orban's son-in-law. Family members and associates double as gatekeepers and deal makers operating outside formal government roles, which come with rules and oversight.
Sandor Lederer has run a Hungarian anti-corruption organization for more than 15 years, throughout Mr. Orban's second stint as prime minister. The story he tells echoes America's. A justice system being captured by the leader's loyalists. Checks and balances weakened or ignored until they barely exist. Moral and ethical frameworks eroded. Oligarchs becoming richer and more powerful than institutions.
Want all of The Times? Subscribe.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CNN
20 minutes ago
- CNN
ICE chief defends agents wearing masks during immigration raids
ICE chief defends agents wearing masks during immigration raids Acting ICE Director Todd Lyons is defending federal immigration agents for wearing masks during raids across the US, citing safety concerns. The tactic has sparked backlash and raised questions about transparency and accountability. 00:58 - Source: CNN See reactions to the Trump-Musk feud See some reactions to the intense public feud that erupted between President Donald Trump and his one-time ally, billionaire Elon Musk. 01:05 - Source: CNN Trump on Musk: 'The poor guy's got a problem' In a phone call with CNN's Dana Bash, President Donald Trump said he is 'not even thinking about' billionaire Elon Musk and won't be speaking to him in the near future. The comments come a day after Trump and Musk traded barbs on social media as their relationship deteriorated in spectacular public fashion. 00:43 - Source: CNN Trump and Musk escalate public feud An intense public feud erupted between President Donald Trump and his one-time ally, billionaire Elon Musk, with an argument about Trump's massive tax and domestic policy bill raging across social media and in the Oval Office. CNN's senior White House correspondent Kristen Holmes reports. 03:03 - Source: CNN Kara Swisher on the 'nuclear' feud between Trump and Musk CNN's Anderson Cooper talks with Kara Swisher about the stunning public feud between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. 01:30 - Source: CNN German leader on 'terrible' impact of Trump's tariffs In an interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz talks about the impact President Trump's tariffs are having on the auto industry. 01:13 - Source: CNN Curtis Yarvin is inspiring a new generation of MAGA CNN's Hadas Gold interviews anti-democracy author Curtis Yarvin about his argument for an all-powerful executive in the White House. 02:24 - Source: CNN DNC Trolls Trump with Taco Truck The Democratic National Committee parked a taco truck outside the RNC headquarters in Washington DC Tuesday, as a way to troll the president over an acronym created by a Financial Times commentator about the president's frequent walk backs and pauses to his tariff's. 00:52 - Source: CNN Musk calls Trump's bill 'disgusting abomination' Elon Musk lashed out at President Donald Trump's agenda bill — which the president is pressuring GOP senators to support — calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' CNN's Kaitlan Collins reports. 00:59 - Source: CNN Dana Bash presses Trump's budget chief about cancer cuts CNN's Dana Bash presses Office of Management and Budget Director Russ Vought on the Trump administration's proposal to cut non-defense spending by more than 22% — including deep reductions to education, food assistance, and billions in cancer research funding. As Vought defends the cuts and criticizes the NIH, Bash challenges him on the real-world impact to life-saving medical research. 01:35 - Source: CNN Trump reacts to video of Macron's apparent shove from wife President Trump was asked by reporters about the viral video appearing to show French President Emmanuel Macron being pushed by his wife Brigitte as they disembarked from a plane in Vietnam. Macron, at the time, quickly dismissed the video. 00:34 - Source: CNN Trans high school athlete wins events amid controversy A transgender athlete, whose participation sparked a national controversy and a temporary rule change, took first place in two of her three events in the California High School Track and Field Championship. 01:09 - Source: CNN South Carolina voter says 'no' to moving center South Carolina has often bucked the electoral trend – voting for candidates who lost in Iowa or New Hampshire and thus helping pick which candidate will move on to the general election. CNN's Jeff Simon spoke to multiple voters at a Democrat dinner in Columbia, South Carolina about the party's leadership and future. 01:25 - Source: CNN Hegseth warns 'threat China poses is real' US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, speaking to Asia's premier defense forum in Singapore, delivered a dire warning to the world: China's designs on Taiwan pose a threat to global peace and stability that requires 'our allies and partners do their part on defense.' While Hegseth made clear that Washington does not seek conflict with China, he stressed the Trump administration would not let aggression from Beijing stand. 00:50 - Source: CNN GOP senator pressed on Medicaid in heated town hall GOP Sen. Joni Ernst faced concerns from town hall attendees over potential cuts to Medicaid and SNAP programs as a result of President Donald Trump's sweeping domestic policy bill, saying at one point, 'Well, we all are going to die,' and insisting that those who are eligible for Medicaid will continue to receive payments. 01:12 - Source: CNN Fareed Zakaria breaks down Trump's tariff battle CNN's Fareed Zakaria breaks down what's going on with President Donald Trump's battle with the Supreme Court over tariffs. 00:58 - Source: CNN President Trump's timeline for things seems to almost always be 'in two weeks' President Donald Trump told reporters it will take about 'two weeks' to determine whether Russian President Vladimir Putin is serious about ending the war in Ukraine. That two week timeline, CNN's Abby Phillip says, is a familiar one. 01:48 - Source: CNN President Trump is on a pardoning spree President Donald Trump used his pardon power to grant clemency to a wave of individuals who had been convicted of crimes that range from public corruption, guns and even maritime-related offenses, according to multiple officials. CNN's Kaitlan Collins reports. 00:53 - Source: CNN Trump responds to Wall Street term 'TACO': Trump Always Chickens Out President Donald Trump was asked about "TACO," an acronym that means "Trump Always Chickens Out," which is used by Wall Street workers for his on-and-off approach to tariffs. Calling it "the nastiest question," Trump defended his tariff policy by calling it "negotiation." 01:13 - Source: CNN Harvard students and faculty speak out against Trump Harvard students and faculty spoke to CNN ahead of commencement as Donald Trump said the university should cap foreign enrollment. The Trump administration has recently sought to cancel $100 million in contracts with the school. 02:03 - Source: CNN
Yahoo
22 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Claims Ukraine Gave Putin A Reason To 'Bomb The Hell Out Of Them' – Forgetting 1 Obvious Detail
Donald Trump has claimed Ukraine gave Vladimir Putin 'a reason to go in and bomb the hell' out of the beleaguered country this week. After enduring more than three years of Russian bombings, an invasion and the occupation of 18% of its territory, Ukraine managed to strike deep within its opponents' land last weekend. Known as Operation Spiderweb, Kyiv used drones to target Russian air bases in a game-changing moment for the war, damaging 41 planes in total. Putin then retaliated by launching a mass missile and drone attack against Ukraine overnight on June 6. According to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy, 80 people were injured and four killed, including first responders. The US president appeared to justify that deadly Russian strike when speaking to reporters on Air Force One on Friday, clearly overlooking that Putin starting the war in February 2022 by invading the country. He said: 'They [Ukraine] gave Putin a reason to go in and bomb the hell out of them last night. 'That's the thing I don't like about it. When I saw it I said, 'here we go, now it's going to be a strike'.' Putin had confirmed that Russia intended to enact revenge on Ukraine during a phone call with Trump earlier this week. The US president also said on June 5 that he knew Russia's response was 'not going to be pretty', adding: 'I don't like it, I said, don't do it, you shouldn't do it, you should stop it.' Since being re-elected and returning to office in January, Trump has repeatedly tried to broker a peace deal between Ukraine and Russia – even if it means resolving the war on Putin's terms, and forcing Ukraine to cede its occupied land. But, despite the president's repeated attempts to push the two sides into a truce, he is yet to impose any further sanctions on Moscow. Trump said on Friday that there was a deadline whereby he expected Russia to have agreed to a ceasefire or face sanctions from the US – but noted that it was 'in my brain' and offered no further specifics. He has previously said that he thinks a peace deal could be in reach and he does not want to 'screw it up' by putting sanctions on Russia. Trump also suggested he had shielded Putin from the worst consequences of his invasion last month. He wrote on Truth Social: 'What Vladimir Putin doesn't realise is that if it weren't for me, lots of really bad things would have already happened to Russia, and I mean really bad. He's playing with fire.' According to Reuters news agency, the US also believes that Putin has not completed his retaliatory strikes yet – but the next phase could come within days. Trump: Musk Faces 'Serious Consequences' If He Backs Dems Over Budget Bill JD Vance Tells Theo Von That Musk Made A 'Huge Mistake' Going After Trump Zelenskyy Rejects Trump's 'Children Fighting' Analogy And Says Putin Is A 'Murderer'
Forbes
23 minutes ago
- Forbes
Have Reporting Burdens Led To More Firms Staying Private?
The best evidence for this hypothesis comes from micro-caps. Confounding trends and offsetting benefits of being public are often ignored by advocates for reducing reporting rules. The number of US public firms has fallen in recent times. Prof. Jay Ritter, who tracks these numbers, documents that we had 3,804 US listed firms at the end of 2024 relative to the peak of around 8000 in 1996. Remarkably we had 1,384 foreign firms listed at the end of 2024. Many blame higher costs reporting and auditing for the smaller number of US listed firms. They point to the cumulative onslaught of Sarbanes Oxley 2022, the 2003 Global Settlement that alleged made it harder for analysts to cover small firms, Dodd-Frank 2010, and the supposedly relentless pace of accounting and auditing regulation pushed by Congress, the SEC and the FASB. The question I want to address is whether there is any evidence for that claim. Trend depends on benchmark period In a research note, Vanguard points out that if we go back to 1972, the decline shrinks to a third. On top of that, 1972 was the year NASDAQ was set up and 3,000 odd new companies entered the public arena. Why the fall? Doidge, Karolyi, Shen and Stulz (2025) list two potential underlying reasons: (i) it is easier to stay private because restrictions on staying private have softened and it has become easier to raise funds for private firms, perhaps due to the low interest rate environment; and (ii) antitrust enforcement over the last decade has been relatively lax and product market competition has heated up leading to a greater number of mergers. They don't seem to devote much space to reporting cost burden. Acquisitions drive most of the decline A McKinsey piece shows that 95% of the exits from our markets are driven by acquisitions. Thus, the so-called missing companies have not left the investible universe for the US investor as the investor gets indirect exposure to the target via the acquirer's stock. Espen Eckbo makes the acquisition point more rigorously. However, the rate of entry and exit into public markets is not uniform across industries. We had more IPOs, relative to exits, in pharmaceutical and biotech industries. The number of IPOs, relative to exits, are more or less the same in retail, materials, consumer apparel and durables. Exits far exceed IPOs in banking, software, technology hardware, media and telecom. Any theory that argues reporting burdens are a first order problem needs to explain why such burden has massively increased for banking, software, tech hardware, media and telecom relative to pharma. Smaller IPOs, mostly micro-caps, gone The McKinsey piece also makes the interesting point that we have far fewer smaller IPOs now relative to the past. This suggests that more of the earlier value is captured by private investors, as private equity firms seem to take longer to exit their positions now relative to before (3 years in 2007 relative to 6 years in 2015). One could argue that the costs of reporting, auditing and compliance have become too large for smaller IPOs to even think about going public. Vanguard points out that the missing IPOs are micro-caps. Is the loss of micro-caps a policy concern? Moreover, Mauboussin, Callahan, and Majd (2017) and Doidge, Karolyi, and Stulz (2017) note that half of what can be referred to as the 'listing gap' (exits more than IPOs) occurred before Sarbanes Oxley became law. Start-ups have declined too Somewhat intriguing, the number of start-ups appears to display mixed patterns since 1996. The Kaufmann index of startup activity falls from 1996 to its nadir in 2013, after which it picks up till 2017, when the index was last published but the 2017 number was still lower than the 1996 number. This suggests that there may be fewer businesses even available to go public. International exchanges I am in the UK as I write this and an institutional investor I know here suggested that the London stock exchange has suffered a similar decline in IPOs. In fact, there is some angst in the UK that they are losing listings to the US. The loss in listings applies to other advanced economies as well, as Espen Eckbo points out. The theory pushing for reporting burdens as the primary explanation will have to explain why UK reporting and reporting in other advanced economies has also become onerously burdensome. Burgeoning private equity (PE) A senior executive tells me,' the payouts achieved by management and their VCs by arranging acquisitions to PE firms, as well as PE to PE sales have been, in recent times, just as compelling as anything other than a truly dramatic IPO. Smaller companies, companies with significant internal ownership, companies without strong growth or high investment opportunities (that is to say not pharma or biotech who absolutely need risk capital), companies where management would like to stay involved but are not keen on public company visibility. These are all great reasons to be acquired by PE rather than either IPO or even getting acquired by a public company rapidly, with certainty, without much publicity. PE is incredibly well equipped at maximizing ongoing cashflows, and growth, while still maintaining: (i) particularly attractive incentives for management in the transaction, (ii) management that stays post transaction with significant incentive retentions and milestones -- all without pesky proxy announcements about executive compensation; and (iii) objectively great returns to those equity holders that are just selling.' The role of reporting for intangibles Rene Stulz (2018) has suggested that new firms heavily invest in intangibles and forced disclosure of intangibles by securities laws, all else constant, encourage firms to stay private. I am not sure of this argument as US public firms barely tell us anything about their intangible investments, especially home grown ones. Papers suggesting that SOX increased regulatory burdens Zhang (2007) finds negative returns of around -15% to -13% around the events surrounding the passage of SOX. I find these returns too large to be credible. Engel, Hayes, and Wang (2007) observed an increase in decisions to go private after SOX. But this evidence is mixed. Bartlett (2008) of the Stanford Law School re-examines this question and concludes, 'non-SOX factors were the primary impetus for the "name brand" buyouts commonly evoked as evidence that SOX has harmed the competitiveness of U.S. capital markets.' Iliev (2010) is perhaps the best cited paper in the area. Using careful research designs, Iliev documents that section 404 of the SOX, which mandates that the auditor attest the internal controls of the firm for the absence of a material weakness, led to conservative reported earnings but also imposed real costs. Iliev compares audit fees and earnings quality for firms with float of $50-75 million to those just above at $75 million-$100 million. The idea is that firms in these two partitions are mostly similar except that Section 404 applies only to firms with float greater than $75 million. He concludes, 'on net, SOX compliance reduced the market value of small firms' and increases audit fees by 167%. Atanasov and Black (2020) replicate Iliev (2010) and conclude that not controlling for firm growth led Iliev (2010) to overestimate SOX compliance costs in his analysis. However, the increase in audit fees suffered by the small firms is real, by about 80%. The dollar numbers underlying these estimates are worth reiterating. The average firm in Iliev's affected firm sample pays more than $0.7 million in greater audit fees. The mean and median earnings of sample firms is -$4.8 million and -$1.4 million respectively. Iliev uses this comparison to argue that the compliance costs of section 404 were substantial. Were they? Would these firms have survived had section 404 not been enacted? Is it obvious that investors would have wanted to invest in such firms? And, how much of the audit fee hike is temporary for a year or two. Even more noteworthy, this evidence relates to micro caps (defined as stocks with market capitalizations of between $50 million and $250 million in 2024). These numbers would be smaller if we went back in time as stock markets have gone up quite a bit in the last 20 years or so. The bigger question is how can we possibly generalize evidence reliant on a sample of microcaps to the entire corporate ecosystem? Ewens, Xiao and Xu (2024), in a new paper, move this literature forward and consider three such natural breakpoints to estimate costs of mandatory reporting: (i) firms below $25 million in float in 1992 were designated as 'small businesses' and escaped a few disclosure requirements; (ii) the $75 million float threshold that Iliev looked for section 404 of SOX; and (iii) the $700 million float threshold used in the 2012 JOBS Act. The 2012 JOBS Act is interesting because the point of that legislation was to exempt smaller firms from a few reporting requirements. So, the JOBS Act presents a bit of a counterfactual to the usual setting whereby regulation increased. Based on these events, they claim that the median firm spends 4.3% of its market capitalization on compliance costs. I find the 4.3% number somewhat big. Moreover, even with the clever econometrics used in the paper, can one really generalize estimates from SOX and JOBS Act to the universe of firms? I don't know. Interestingly, Ewens et al. themselves seem to conclude, 'heightened regulatory costs only explain a small fraction of the decline in the number of public firms over the last two decades. Our results suggest that non-regulatory factors likely played a more important role in explaining the decline in the number of U.S. public firms.' Evidence around the 2012 JOBS Act Researchers are generally good at coming up with unintended consequences of regulations that public firms are required to follow. But we don't often see studies that document the offsetting benefits of going or staying public. The 2012 JOBS Act presents a rare opportunity to consider whether relaxing reporting regulations encourages more IPOs. Dambra et al. (2015) conclude that the 2012 JOBS Act led to an increase of 21 IPOs a year, on average. Ewens et al. (2024) find a slightly higher estimate: roughly 28 additional IPOs. One must wonder whether 20 odd IPOs per year are worth the potential collateral damage to the credibility of US reporting and compliance systems, if the PCAOB were to be dismantled or SOX were to be repealed. Incidentally, many other advanced economies passed regulation, modeled on SOX, in their own countries. Did they not conduct a careful assessment of costs of such regulation on their IPO activity? Or did they recognize the need to tighten up reporting and audit rules after the tech bubble burst in 2001? IPO Tax Robert Jackson's, the ex-SEC commissioner, analysis highlights the 7% tax that middle market IPOs must pay even before they go public, to investment bankers, lawyers and the like. Surely, the IPO tax, which has little to do per se with the reporting and compliance costs of 4.3% highlighted by Ewens et al, deserves more attention. The advocates of cutting reporting burdens are somewhat silent about reducing the 7% middle market IPO tax. And I am aware of startups that are working on software that can write an S1 in minutes with AI. Shouldn't the 4.3% reporting costs, estimated by Ewens et al., fall? Benefits of staying public are often ignored Owners, VCs, and capital providers get liquidity. Public firms can potentially pay labor mostly via stock and hence attract higher quality talent. Stock can be used as a means of payment to buy another company and hence take out a rival or to buy a complementary firm. If you get acquired, the acquirer is usually expected to pay a 25% control premium over the prevailing stock price. In sum, the case for reporting burdens forcing companies to stay private is far from clear. The best evidence relates to micro-caps and generalizing from that set to other companies is not straightforward. Partisan debate about the evidence often tends to ignore the vast number of confounding factors such as low interest rates, falling number of start-ups, special time periods chosen for the analysis and large number of acquisitions of public firms and the 7% IPO tax. If anything, US reporting rules need to be strengthened, not weakened. I have pointed out, time and again, the deficiencies in our financial reporting system and how auditors could potentially do a better job. Regulators may want to proceed with caution the next time someone brings up the hypothesis that reporting burdens are a significant barrier to US firms going public.
