In his first year back in the White House, Donald Trump's overseas property brand licensing business experienced explosive growth. The segment generated $59.5 million in 2025, as multiple international developers paid hefty sums to affix the Trump name to luxury residential towers, golf courses, and coastal resorts abroad.

An analysis of Trump's annual financial disclosure filings shows that overseas licensing revenue from properties using the Trump brand globally surged 71% from 2024, nearly ten times the level seen in 2023. The core reason for this surge is that the Trump Organization reversed its pledge from its first term to "sign no new international deals."

The Trump Organization's second-term ethics code prohibits material new transactions with foreign governments but allows cooperation with private overseas companies. Four limited liability companies tied to the Trump brand licensing business that were not on the 2024 filing list generated $20.25 million in 2025, accounting for 82% of the revenue increase. Additionally, five previously dormant licensing subsidiaries brought in another $9.64 million.

Over 60% of licensing revenue came from projects in Gulf states. Some developers paying for the Trump naming rights are simultaneously pursuing large US investments, applying for US government permits, or working to secure more favorable trade and diplomatic ties between their home countries and the United States. Other overseas Trump-branded projects are built on state-owned land, funded by sovereign wealth funds, or developed in joint ventures with state-owned enterprises.

Several ethics watchdog figures say this situation creates an unprecedented intertwining of presidential power and private wealth. Legal experts also note that the series of transactions raises unresolved legal questions under the U.S. Constitution's Emoluments Clause. The Trump Organization responded that its operations are fully separate from the presidency, strictly comply with ethics and conflict-of-interest laws, and that it has hired external ethics advisors to avoid conflicts. However, the group did not respond to inquiries about specific overseas licensing projects.

A White House spokesperson, when asked about Trump's overseas business dealings, did not directly address the transactions but stated that the only special interest guiding all of Trump's decisions is "the core interests of the American people." The spokesperson cited the over $2 trillion in investment commitments and numerous trade, defense, aviation, and technology agreements signed during the president's May 2025 trip to the Gulf.

Scott Greytak, deputy executive director of Transparency International's U.S. office, said: "Foreign governments and companies with political connections now have a direct, open channel to funnel money to a sitting president." Greytak added: "The conflict of interest is already visible. We don't need to wait for concrete evidence to see the potential for a quid pro quo."

In 2024, Eric Trump said in an interview that the family had "exhausted every option to avoid any appearance of impropriety, yet still faced criticism," and added: "We can't completely abandon overseas business forever, and I will never do that." Donald Trump himself was more direct when discussing overseas deals, telling a newspaper in January of that year: "I found out later that no one really cares, and the law allows me to do it."

Gulf developers accelerate US market entry

In 2025, UAE-linked projects brought in about $22 million in brand licensing revenue for Trump, Saudi projects generated $9 million, and Qatar projects brought in $5 million. The vast majority of revenue came from two Gulf-based real estate developers: Saudi Arabia's Dar Al Arkan and Dubai-headquartered Damac Properties.

Trump's filings show that projects under Dar Al Arkan and its Dubai-based international subsidiary, Global Dar Al Arkan, collectively generated $25.8 million in revenue, while Damac partnership projects brought in $11.3 million in licensing fees. The licensing model works as follows: the local developer fully funds and builds the project, while the Trump Organization collects only the brand naming fee, and in some cases, an additional operation management fee.

The Gulf region's branded luxury residential market is booming, with developers using high-end and celebrity brand names to sell homes. Data from commercial real estate services and investment firm CBRE Group Inc shows that branded residential sales volumes in Dubai rose 26% year-on-year in the first nine months of 2025, with total transaction value increasing by 51%.

The Trump brand offers a unique value that other luxury or celebrity brands cannot match: it implies a potential connection to the administrative power of the U.S. president. Critics like Ben Freeman, director of the Democratic Foreign Policy Project at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft, say that if a developer or its home country has demands that need the U.S. response, associating with the Trump brand signals a direct channel to American politics. The think tank advocates for diplomatic solutions over military intervention. Freeman questioned: "Is this an 'America First' foreign policy, or a 'Trump Personal First' foreign policy?"

Ethics experts say the Damac partnership clearly illustrates the conflict between public and private interests. Damac's total $11.3 million in licensing fees includes two newly disclosed payments of $5 million each for Abu Dhabi project naming rights, even though the Trump Organization has no active development projects there. Industry rules allow developers to buy the exclusive rights to the Trump brand before construction begins, with fees paid upfront or in installments tied to project milestones.

These payments coincided with a major expansion of the U.S. business by Damac Group, founded by billionaire Hussain Sajwani. In January 2025, before officially taking office, Trump met Sajwani at Mar-a-Lago, where Sajwani announced plans to invest at least $20 billion in U.S. data centers. Trump publicly stated that the environmental review and regulatory approval process for companies investing over $1 billion would be expedited.

Sajwani, a longtime friend of Trump, said at the time that the group's investment prospects in the U.S. were limitless. Six months later, Trump signed an executive order requiring federal agencies to streamline approval processes for qualified data centers and their supporting energy infrastructure. The policy's broad scope quickly allowed Damac to advance a large data center project, positioning it for a federal fast-track and related support. County property records show that in December, a Damac subsidiary spent $36.5 million to acquire eight parcels of land near Canton, Ohio, for a data center plan, just two days after the same land was sold for a total of $8.55 million. The project will still need to coordinate with local governments on power and water infrastructure.

Greytak commented: "The developer's project is highly dependent on federal approvals and energy policy, creating a direct economic interest with this administration's decisions." The Canton city government spokesperson, Christian Turner, issued a statement saying that Damac Digital Technologies is subject to the same approval standards as any other developer, and the project is still under review, with no local subsidies approved yet.

Dar Al Arkan and Damac both received multiple interview requests but did not respond.

Kedric Payne, ethics director at the Campaign Legal Center, a government ethics advocacy group, said: "This Damac brand payment looks more like a way to inject money into the president's private business in order to gain favorable policy treatment for the data center project." Payne added: "When the president's executive decisions appear to be directly linked to his personal income, it creates at least a significant ethics perception problem."

Private deals backed by official endorsements

Other Gulf Cooperation Council country projects reveal another layer of potential conflict. The Trump Organization signed brand licensing agreements with private developers in Qatar and Oman, not directly with foreign governments. However, both projects involve significant state-owned entities. The Trump Organization's internal ethics rules only prohibit direct contracts with foreign governments, but in practice, both projects rely on state-owned land, sovereign capital, or state-owned partners.

Freeman of the Quincy Institute said that in Gulf states, the line between private developers and foreign governments is "often blurred." "The largest shareholders are often royal family members, or royal representatives sit on the company's board. Even if it's a private company signing the contract, there is almost always a deep intertwining of interests between the government and the company."

Trump's filings show that Global Dar Al Arkan plans to develop a Trump-branded golf club and luxury villa project in Qatar, generating $5.25 million in licensing revenue. The project is part of the larger Simaisma coastal development, led by Qatar's Diar Real Estate, a company established by the Qatar Investment Authority, whose chairman also serves as Qatar's Minister of Municipality.

The timing of the licensing fee coincided with a significant warming of U.S.-Qatar relations: Global Dar Al Arkan and Diar announced the Trump-branded project on April 30, 2025. Two weeks later, Trump began his first major foreign trip of his second term, visiting Doha and signing a series of major aviation, defense, and trade agreements with Qatar.

Greytak pointed out: "The core issue isn't about proving a direct quid pro quo, but that while Qatar is paying a brand fee to the president's private company, it is also seeking major bilateral agreements with the U.S. People naturally question whose interests are driving this round of bilateral relations." Qatar's government and Diar Real Estate did not respond to inquiries about whether the Trump-branded project was discussed during bilateral negotiations.

The Oman project follows a similar model, involving a joint venture between a private developer and a state-owned platform. Trump's filings show that the Aida Resort project in Oman generated nearly $1 million in licensing fees. The project is a joint venture between Global Dar Al Arkan and Oman's state-owned tourism development group, Omran Group. The Omani government and Omran Group did not provide detailed responses about the role of the state-owned entity in the project or the Trump licensing deal.

Overseas brand licensing revenue is not limited to the Gulf region. A Trump-branded golf resort worth an estimated $1.5 billion is planned on the outskirts of Hanoi, Vietnam, with Trump's filings showing $5 million in licensing revenue. The project progressed as the Vietnamese government was negotiating with the U.S. to avoid a proposed 46% tariff. At the project's groundbreaking ceremony in May 2025, Vietnamese Prime Minister Pham Minh Chinh attended alongside Eric Trump, who said his visit "helped us accelerate the project approval process."

Payne commented: "The close timing between key government policy adjustments and the Trump family business receiving substantial payments makes it hard not to suspect a connection." The Vietnamese government did not respond to questions about whether the real estate project was discussed during tariff negotiations or the specific reasons for the expedited approval.

The Emoluments Clause legal debate

Several legal experts say the Qatar and Oman projects raise unresolved legal questions under the U.S. Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause, which prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts or benefits from foreign states without congressional consent.

Scott Anderson, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution and general counsel and senior editor at the legal commentary site Lawfare, explained the core issue: "If the land is owned by a state-owned enterprise, the funding comes from sovereign capital, or a state-owned platform is involved throughout the development, can a brand licensing fee paid through a private developer be legally considered a gift from a foreign government to the president?" U.S. courts have not yet made a final ruling on this matter.

During Trump's first term, multiple lawsuits alleging violations of the clause were dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2021 as moot after Trump left office, without the court ruling on the substantive application of the clause. Anderson, who previously served as a legal advisor at the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, said: "The Founding Fathers clearly did not envision this brand licensing fee model, but the clause's scope is broad, and its core principle is that public officials cannot profit from foreign governments without congressional approval."