On April 3, 2025, President Donald Trump attended the LIV Golf Miami tournament at his Doral golf resort, prioritizing personal business over national crises, such as the stock market crash and the deaths of U.S. servicemen. Trump’s engagement with foreign entities and companies, including Saudi sponsors and TikTok, raises significant conflict-of-interest concerns, violating traditional ethical norms. His administration is characterized by a decline in oversight, with Trump dismantling safeguards against corruption and benefiting from opaque dealings. This shift toward kleptocracy suggests that U.S. policies may increasingly serve the president’s personal interests rather than the nation’s. Accountability now relies on media scrutiny and voter action.
On Friday, April 4, as stock markets plummeted, Donald Trump departed Washington, D.C. He opted against visiting New York to engage with Wall Street or heading to Dover, Delaware, to honor four American servicemen who had died in an accident while on military duty in Lithuania. Instead, Trump traveled to Florida, specifically to his Doral golf resort, which was hosting the Saudi-backed LIV Golf tournament, and spent time at Mar-a-Lago where many tournament attendees and sponsors also gathered. His private enterprises clearly took priority over national matters.
Several individuals present at the event were not only captivated by the tournament but also aimed to bolster Trump’s personal pursuits while winning his favor. Among them was Yasir al-Rumayyan, the head of the $925 billion Saudi sovereign-wealth fund and chair of the LIV tournament. Other sponsors included Riyadh Air, a Saudi airline, and Aramco, the state oil firm of Saudi Arabia, alongside surprisingly, TikTok, the Chinese-owned social media giant which Trump will personally evaluate, even as he benefits from its sponsorship and backing.
In the past (not so long ago), overt conflicts of interest, especially involving foreign entities, were situations from which presidents steered clear. No former president would relish the thought of appearing to engage in personal business with firms from nations seeking to sway American foreign policy. Such interactions jeopardize the Constitution’s stipulation against government officials accepting “gifts, titles or emoluments from foreign governments.” Yet during Trump’s initial term, judicial oversight largely overlooked his commercial entanglements. Now, he not only collaborates with foreign and domestic firms with vested interests in his policies, but he openly promotes and celebrates these connections. We are informed about the golf-tournament sponsors not through investigative efforts, but rather because they are prominently featured on official websites and showcased on a billboard at his golf course, as reported by The New York Times.
Both the official site and the billboard would have been considered scandals in any previous administration. Their relative obscurity now stems from the fact that Trump’s actions reflect a larger trend. We are amid a revolutionary transformation, a significant pivot away from the transparency and accountability that most modern democracies uphold, leading toward the shadowy practices and corrupt behaviors typical of authoritarian regimes. Over the last decade, American governance and business have progressively adopted the kleptocratic model established in nations like Russia and China, where the rulers’ conflicts of interest are an accepted norm.
This shift began during Trump’s first term—Vice President Mike Pence once made a lengthy detour on a trip to Ireland to stay at a Trump hotel—but Trump faced limits imposed by his advisers and perhaps by a lingering fear of potential legal repercussions at that time. Now, he is aware he evaded consequences for several misdeeds, including attempting to overturn an election. His advisers are submissive; he feels no constraints. New benchmarks were established in December when the Trump Organization announced plans for constructing a Trump Tower in Saudi Arabia, presenting a glaring conflict of interest for the president-elect.
Additionally, Trump’s family has initiated a cryptocurrency venture, World Liberty Financial, which could effectively act as a medium for indirect bribes. No one within his circle raised objections. Following Trump’s re-election, his administration, unconcerned about perceived impropriety, swiftly halted a civil probe into Justin Sun, a Chinese entrepreneur and advisor to World Liberty Financial, who had also invested at least $75 million in the firm. More recently, The Wall Street Journal revealed that Binance executives, a cryptocurrency exchange, conferred with Treasury officials seeking relaxed regulations while simultaneously negotiating a private business deal with World Liberty Financial. Binance has previously faced a record $4.3 billion fine for enabling the use of its exchange by terrorists, drug traffickers, and individuals under sanctions, rendering its push for looser regulations quite serious and substantial.
In line with this new ethos, the inauguration itself manifested as a bold exhibition of the administration’s kleptocratic principles. While American tech CEOs garnered significant attention as leading guests, several foreign business associates of the Trump Organization attended inauguration-related gatherings, took photos with Trump, and referenced their ties to his presidency in their promotional content. Additionally, lesser-known firms engaged in regulatory discussions with the U.S. government discreetly donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to Trump’s inauguration. Shortly thereafter, Trump expelled 17 inspectors general responsible for overseeing corruption and ethics within the government in a late-night overhaul.
Trump’s actions are not simply self-serving; he is facilitating a culture where others can similarly cut corners. From the outset of his career, Trump eagerly engaged within the obscure, offshore realm of shell companies and anonymous accounts, a sector that has historically appealed to autocrats, criminals, and others wishing to veil their fortunes. By 2018, over one in five condos in Trump-branded buildings had been acquired by anonymous shell entities whose true ownership remained undisclosed, and the influx of untraceable investors continued throughout his presidency. Currently, his administration actively aids other shadowy operations to remain concealed. Trump’s Treasury Department recently declared it would cease enforcement of the Corporate Transparency Act, undermining recent congressional endeavors aimed at curtailing money laundering, tax evasion, and other illicit activities by anonymous investors. An executive order by Trump has also halted enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, which forbids American and foreign businesses from offering bribes for commercial opportunities. Furthermore, the Department of Justice is dissolving a task force intended to uphold sanctions against Russian oligarchs closely allied to Vladimir Putin.
Oversight will diminish across various domestic financial and governmental entities. Trump has directed a complete halt of operations at the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, formed to shield consumers from exploitative practices by banks and other financial institutions. He has terminated key officials responsible for ensuring ethics, whistleblower protections, and labor rights, including those at the Office of Government Ethics, the Office of Special Counsel, and the Merit Systems Protection Board. Simultaneously, officials at the Justice Department are drafting plans to reduce investigations into fraud and public corruption, complicating the prosecution of unscrupulous officials. Cuts to the IRS personnel will also make identifying and prosecuting tax fraud more challenging. Just last week, the Justice Department announced it would limit investigations into cryptocurrency fraud and disband its National Cryptocurrency Enforcement Team.
One particular Trump supporter has already tapped into the opportunities presented by this new environment where conflicts of interest seemingly hold no significance. Elon Musk, who operates without any formal mandate besides the president’s endorsement, wields significant power over the very government institutions that historically subsidized and regulated his enterprises. Musk enacted layoffs at the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the federal agency responsible for overseeing auto safety and crash inquiries, including those involving his own electric vehicle venture, Tesla. He has overseen significant staff reductions at other regulatory bodies that had initiated over 30 investigations into his companies, including SpaceX and Neuralink.
Concurrently, major federal agencies like the General Services Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration are utilizing or considering utilizing Starlink, a product of SpaceX. The State Department had plans to acquire armored Teslas. Evan Feinman, a Commerce Department official, resigned the previous month due to pressure to leverage Starlink for rural broadband services. “Abandoning parts of rural America with inadequate internet to further enrich the world’s wealthiest individual is yet another example of betrayal by Washington,” he stated. Musk operates within legal boundaries and has no obligation to prompt these changes. His new stature as America’s leading oligarch allows various individuals and agencies to defer to him regardless.
Musk also holds tangible sway over American foreign policy. If upheld by courts, cuts to USAID, the U.S. Institute of Peace, and U.S.-backed foreign broadcasters, including Voice of America, will significantly undermine American diplomacy and soft power, while also negatively impacting international healthcare and humanitarian aid. The cessation of American-funded broadcasting alone will notably favor China, which competes with the U.S. on narratives and ideologies alongside economic fronts. It’s noteworthy that Musk finds himself in a position to make decisions highly advantageous to Chinese influence, despite having crucial ongoing business ties in China. His “gigafactory” in Shanghai, established with substantial Chinese financing, has become Tesla’s primary production site.
However, under Trump’s administration, outside interests do not provoke concern. To illustrate, FBI Director Kash Patel disclosed during his Senate confirmation hearings that he had accepted between $1 million to $5 million in stock compensation from the parent company of Shein, a Chinese e-commerce firm accused of utilizing forced labor. He informed the senators that he would not sell off his shares. Patel has also consulted for the Czechoslovak Group, a foreign arms consortium associated, according to former Senator J. D. Vance, with “ties to the inner circle of Russian President Vladimir Putin.” Despite Patel’s new responsibility for countering Russian and Chinese influence and espionage, 51 Senate Republicans confirmed his appointment.
Yet these are merely the conflicts of interest within public awareness. How many individuals profited last week from foreknowledge of Trump’s policy reversal on tariffs? How many are making stock-market trades founded on their access to governmental information? The answers remain elusive, and it’s improbable that Trump’s Department of Justice will seek to uncover them. We are left in the dark, akin to those living in other kleptocracies, and this transformation is profound.
Earlier this year, I released a book, Autocracy, Inc., which posits that modern autocracies are best understood not through ideological lenses but through the political and financial motivations of their leaders. The presence in American governance of numerous individuals, chiefly the president, whose financial interests can be directly influenced by their political choices indicates a necessity for a new framework in analyzing American policy.
To comprehend Trump’s policies towards Russia and Ukraine, for example, one should inquire not only How will they conclude the war? and How will they mold America’s ties to Europe? but also Who in Trump’s inner circle stands to gain from the lifting of sanctions? and Have the Russians made financial propositions yet, and to whom? The ongoing negotiations surrounding rare-earth minerals with Ukraine require especially thorough oversight. We must identify which Americans are poised to benefit and in what manner.
The pertinent question regarding Trump’s tariff initiatives is also financial: How will this significant alteration to American trade policies advantage Trump? A concrete answer is already visible. Countries and corporations adversely affected by these tariffs, some teetering on the brink of loss or bankruptcy, will possess a strong motivation to curry favor with the president, offering political contributions, and potentially even proposing business arrangements to him, his relatives, or associates to secure exemptions for themselves or their sectors.
In a law-abiding administration, personal finances would not constitute a central aspect of the public discourse. Nevertheless, the leaders of this administration have opted to disregard laws and behavioral standards that have prevailed for over a century. The Republican-led Congress has thus far chosen not to uphold these principles. It is now the responsibility of the media, independent organizations, and whistleblowers to continue shedding light on the descent into kleptocracy, ensuring that existing laws are upheld. The Democratic Party must embrace the efforts of opposition movements in other kleptocracies, centering corruption in their advocacy. Before it’s too late, all who can must convey the unfolding events: American governance, foreign policy, and trade policy are gradually being reshaped, not for the benefits of the American populace but to enrich the president, his family, and his confidants. Only the electorate can halt this trend.
Anne Applebaum is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where this first appeared. She is also a senior fellow at the SNF Agora Institute at Johns Hopkins University and the School of Advanced International Studies. This article was adapted in part from the preface to the paperback edition of Autocracy Inc., which will be published in the United Kingdom in May and in the United States in August. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency.
• • •
The views expressed here are the writer’s and are not necessarily endorsed by the Anchorage Daily News, which welcomes a broad range of viewpoints. To submit a piece for consideration, email commentary(at)adn.com. Send submissions shorter than 200 words to [email protected] or click here to submit via any web browser. Read our full guidelines for letters and commentaries here.