As tensions with Iran intensify and instability spreads across the Persian Gulf, a growing question in Washington is no longer limited to Trump’s foreign policy choices, but also to who may financially benefit from them. A new Reuters/Ipsos poll shows that most Americans believe the president’s private financial interests influence his decisions in office, raising fresh concerns over the intersection of Trump’s business empire, the U.S. defense industry and Washington’s approach to tensions and escalation in the Middle East.
Tehran-IranView24
A growing perception of a conflict of interest is casting a shadow over Donald Trump’s second presidency, with a new Reuters/Ipsos poll showing that a clear majority of Americans believe the president’s private financial interests are influencing the decisions he makes in office.
The poll, conducted from August 14 to 17 among 1,166 U.S. adults, found that 69 percent of respondents believe Trump allows considerations related to his financial interests to affect his presidential decisions. The figure rises to 90 percent among Democrats and stands at 69 percent among independents. Even among Republicans, nearly half—48 percent—share the view.
The findings point to a concern that extends beyond the usual partisan divide: that the boundaries between the U.S. presidency and Trump’s expanding private business empire have become increasingly difficult to distinguish.
Richard Painter, who served as chief ethics lawyer in the administration of former President George W. Bush, said the scale and complexity of Trump’s business interests in his second term are unprecedented.
“We have seen nothing like this before,” Painter said, arguing that even Trump’s first administration did not involve the same level of overlapping business interests.
Cryptocurrency at the center of the controversy
Trump’s cryptocurrency ventures have become one of the clearest examples of the concerns surrounding his personal finances and the presidency.
The same Reuters/Ipsos survey found that 63 percent of Americans believe it was inappropriate for Trump and his family to profit from cryptocurrency businesses after he returned to the White House.
Trump and members of his family have built a substantial presence in the cryptocurrency industry through ventures including the $TRUMP meme coin and World Liberty Financial. According to financial disclosures released by the administration, Trump generated hundreds of millions of dollars from these businesses. Reuters has reported that the Trump family’s cryptocurrency ventures have generated more than $1.4 billion in gains, although estimates vary depending on how the assets and revenues are calculated.
The controversy intensified this month when the U.S. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency conditionally approved a national trust bank charter for World Liberty Financial. The decision gives the Trump-linked company a more formal role in the U.S. financial system and allows it to expand its activities involving stablecoins, asset custody and payments, subject to regulatory conditions.
The development has raised questions among Democrats and ethics advocates about whether a sitting president and his family should be financially benefiting from an industry that is simultaneously seeking favorable legislation and regulatory treatment from the administration.
Trump has denied that he personally manages the day-to-day operations of the businesses, arguing that his investments are independently handled. Nevertheless, the political controversy remains because the president and his family continue to have significant financial interests in the sector while the administration is actively shaping cryptocurrency policy.
Indeed, Trump called on Congress this week to pass cryptocurrency legislation establishing clearer regulatory rules for the industry. The White House event was attended by executives from major crypto companies, underscoring the increasingly close relationship between the administration and the industry in which the Trump family has major financial interests.
From cryptocurrency to the military-industrial complex
The concerns, however, do not stop at cryptocurrency.
A separate analysis published by Responsible Statecraft examined Trump’s financial disclosures and found that brokers acting on his behalf purchased between $9.7 million and $24.3 million worth of shares in a dozen defense contractors during 2025.
The companies included major U.S. weapons manufacturers and military technology firms such as Palantir, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics, RTX and Boeing.
This is particularly significant given the Trump administration’s increasingly militarized foreign policy and the dramatic expansion of U.S. military activity in the Middle East.
According to the analysis, Trump’s portfolio included between $1.6 million and $3.9 million in Palantir shares, up to $1.4 million in Lockheed Martin, up to $1 million in General Dynamics and more than $800,000 in RTX. The portfolio also included investments in other major aerospace and defense companies.
The issue is not simply that Trump owns or has exposure to defense stocks. The deeper concern is whether a president who can influence military spending, arms contracts and foreign policy should simultaneously retain financial interests in companies that stand to benefit from greater military spending and prolonged conflicts.
Trump’s defenders point out that his brokers are not supposed to accept trade instructions from him or his family. Critics, however, note that Trump has not placed his assets in a conventional blind trust, meaning that questions about his knowledge of and potential influence over his investments remain.
Iran war adds another layer to the debate
The issue has acquired even greater significance following the U.S.-Israeli war against Iran.
Responsible Statecraft reported that several defense companies in Trump’s portfolio have benefited from the escalation of military tensions and the subsequent demand for weapons and replenishment of U.S. stockpiles. Palantir, Lockheed Martin, General Dynamics and RTX are among the companies whose products and contracts are directly connected to U.S. military capabilities in the region.
Palantir, for example, has played an increasingly prominent role in U.S. military operations through artificial intelligence and battlefield data systems. The company received a $10 billion Army contract last year for software and data services, while its technology has also been associated with U.S. targeting capabilities in the Iran war.
Lockheed Martin and RTX, meanwhile, manufacture systems and missiles used extensively by the U.S. military and Israel. Their share prices and government contracts have benefited from the broader increase in defense spending and demand for weapons.
From an Iranian perspective, this creates a particularly troubling intersection: decisions made in Washington can have direct military consequences for Iran and the wider Middle East while companies financially connected to the U.S. political establishment stand to benefit from increased weapons demand.
That does not, by itself, establish that Trump’s personal investments caused or dictated any particular foreign-policy decision. But it does raise a legitimate question about whether the financial incentives surrounding the presidency are sufficiently separated from decisions involving war, sanctions, arms sales and military spending.
A presidency increasingly intertwined with private wealth
The controversy is part of a broader pattern.
Trump entered his second term as a businessman-president with an unusually large and diversified private financial empire. Unlike traditional presidents who typically place their substantial investments into arrangements designed to create a clear separation between personal wealth and presidential decision-making, Trump’s business activities have remained a recurring part of his political life.
The result is a situation in which cryptocurrency companies, defense contractors, foreign investors and other commercial interests can find themselves interacting with an administration whose leader and family retain substantial private business interests.
The scale of the concern is reflected in the public’s response. According to the Reuters/Ipsos survey, 69 percent of Americans believe Trump’s financial interests influence his presidential decisions, while 63 percent consider his family’s cryptocurrency profits since his return to power inappropriate.
Such accusations remain political and ethical judgments rather than established findings of criminal wrongdoing. But the breadth of public concern suggests that the issue is no longer confined to Trump’s political opponents.
Why it matters beyond Washington
The implications extend well beyond the United States.
For countries such as Iran, the question is not merely whether Trump is personally profiting from cryptocurrencies or defense stocks. It is whether the structure of American politics creates incentives that make confrontation, sanctions and military escalation more attractive to influential economic actors.
The U.S. defense industry has long been a powerful force in Washington through lobbying, campaign contributions and government contracts. The Trump era has added another dimension by bringing the president’s own commercial interests into closer proximity with sectors that can benefit from geopolitical confrontation.
This does not mean that every U.S. military decision is motivated by corporate profits, nor does it prove that Trump’s investments determine his foreign policy. Such a conclusion would go beyond the available evidence.
But the combination of presidential power, private wealth, cryptocurrency ventures and investments in defense companies creates an unusually concentrated set of potential conflicts of interest.
For Iran and other countries confronting Washington’s foreign policy, this distinction is important. The question is not simply who benefits financially from a particular war, but whether the architecture of U.S. decision-making allows private economic interests to coexist too comfortably with decisions over war and peace.
And as Trump’s second presidency moves forward, the Reuters/Ipsos findings suggest that a growing share of Americans are asking precisely that question.
