Trump Vilified, Yet He's the Only President NOT Cashing In on America’s Enemies

By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com June 5, 2025  

Donald Trump is the most vilified president in modern history. The media paints him as a greedy, power-hungry tycoon, a threat to democracy who incited J6 and dodged justice through “lawfare” (see my articles “Media Bias Exposed: J6 Rioters Vilified” and “Lawfare Against Trump: Media-Fueled Witch Hunt”). Yet, here’s a fact the mainstream conveniently ignores: Trump is the only president in decades to lose wealth during his term—$1.2 billion, according to Forbes—while prioritizing policies that put America first. Meanwhile, the Clintons, Bushes, Obamas, and Bidens raked in millions, often tied to foreign players like Russia and China, nations that openly work against U.S. interests. Why does the media give them a pass while hammering Trump? Let’s peel back the curtain and expose the double standard.

Trump’s Sacrifice: A Billion-Dollar Hit for America First

When Trump took office in 2017, his net worth was estimated at $3.7 billion by Forbes. By 2020, it plummeted to $2.3–2.5 billion—a loss of $700 million to $1.2 billion. Why? His real estate and hospitality empire took a beating. The COVID-19 pandemic crushed revenues at properties like Trump National Doral, which dropped from $70 million to $44 million annually, and the Trump Hotel in D.C., which fell from $40 million to $15 million. Add to that the post-January 6 backlash, where woke companies and lenders ditched him, and security costs at Mar-a-Lago scared off high-end patrons. Unlike his predecessors, Trump didn’t cash in on speaking fees or book deals during his term. He stuck with his businesses, which bled money while he pushed policies to strengthen America.

Take his trade policies, which I’ve detailed extensively (“How Trump’s Tariffs Are Winning Trade” and “Trump’s Tariffs Are Winning—Don’t Believe the Hype”). Trump slapped tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum, reviving U.S. industries and protecting jobs, as I explored in “The Rise and Fall of Steel Prices”. He took on China, a nation that needs us more than we need them “Why China Needs USA More Than USA Needs China”, forcing fairer trade deals despite media cries of “isolationism” “Is America Isolating Itself When It Comes to Trade?”. These moves cost Trump personally—his businesses faced global market headwinds—but they put American workers first. Can you name another president who took a billion-dollar hit to prioritize the U.S. economy?

The Establishment’s Profiteering: Clinton, Biden, and Foreign Cash

Now, contrast Trump’s losses with the establishment’s gains. Let’s start with the Clintons. In 2010, while Hillary was Secretary of State, Bill pocketed a cool $500,000 for a two-hour speech in Moscow, paid by Renaissance Capital, a Kremlin-linked bank with uranium interests. That same year, the Clinton Foundation got $2.35 million in undisclosed donations from Frank Giustra, chairman of Uranium One, just as Hillary’s State Department signed off on Russia’s Rosatom acquiring 20% of U.S. uranium production capacity. Coincidence? As I’ve argued before, where there’s smoke, there’s fire. The Clintons’ net worth skyrocketed from $1.3 million pre-presidency to $120–241.5 million post-presidency, fueled by $153 million in speaking fees and fat book deals. Russian money, anyone?

Then there’s Joe Biden. As Vice President, he strong-armed Ukraine into firing Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin by threatening to withhold a $1 billion loan guarantee. Biden bragged about it in a 2018 video, smirking, “Well, son of a bitch, he got fired.” Conveniently, his son Hunter was pulling in $50,000 a month from Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company under scrutiny. Emails show Burisma execs leaning on Hunter for “influence,” and his business partner Devon Archer testified they “called D.C.” when Shokin’s probe loomed. But that’s just the tip of the iceberg. Hunter’s deals with CEFC China Energy, a CCP-linked firm, netted him $4.8 million, including an $80,000 diamond “gift.” Worse, CEFC tried to buy Westinghouse, potentially handing China U.S. nuclear tech—possibly costing Westinghouse billions through stolen designs, as I detail in my latest piece “Hunter Biden’s CEFC Deals: Did They Cost Westinghouse Billions and Shield China from Accountability?”. Sure, the media claims it was all above board, but why was Hunter, with zero energy experience, on Burisma’s board or cozying up to Chinese firms? Compare that to Trump, who avoided foreign cash grabs during his term.

The Obamas and Bushes aren’t saints either. Barack Obama’s net worth jumped from $1.3 million to $70 million post-presidency, thanks to a $65 million book deal and $400,000-a-pop speeches, often for corporate and foreign audiences. George W. Bush doubled his wealth from $20 million to $40 million through similar gigs. Legal? Sure. But profiting off global influence while Trump took a financial hit for America-first policies? That’s a contrast the media won’t touch.

Truth Social: Domestic Gains, Not Foreign Handouts

Trump’s wealth rebounded after his presidency, hitting $6.5 billion by 2024, largely due to Truth Social, a U.S.-based platform launched through Trump Media & Technology Group. Unlike the Clintons’ Kremlin cash or Biden’s family’s Ukrainian and Chinese payouts, Truth Social is a homegrown venture, aligning with Trump’s focus on American interests. No Russian oligarchs or Chinese state firms here—just a platform challenging Big Tech’s censorship. Yet the media still paints Trump as the profiteer, ignoring how his predecessors leveraged their positions for foreign-linked wealth.

Why the Vilification? A Biased Media and Threatened Establishment

So why does Trump get vilified while the Clintons, Bidens, and others skate free? It’s simple: he’s a threat to the establishment. His tariffs disrupted globalist trade policies that enriched elites while hollowing out American manufacturing. His outsider status and brash style make him an easy target for a media that’s been gunning for him since 2016 “The 2020 Election Debate: Trump’s Vilification Continues”. As I’ve shown, the media hypes J6 as an “insurrection” while brushing off Clinton’s Russian ties or Biden’s family mess—Burisma, Chinese cash, and potentially billions in losses for Westinghouse. They amplify “lawfare” against Trump—endless legal battles—while ignoring the Clintons’ $2.35 million in undisclosed donations or Hunter’s Chinese millions. Double standard much?

The establishment tolerates career politicians who play the game: take foreign cash, give speeches, sign book deals, and cozy up to adversaries like Russia and China. Trump didn’t. His trade wars and domestic focus cost him billions, yet he’s the one labeled corrupt. The media’s silence on others’ foreign dealings proves it’s not about ethics—it’s about protecting the swamp.

The Bottom Line

Trump’s presidency was a financial sacrifice, losing $1.2 billion while pushing policies that revived American industries. The Clintons cashed in on Russian uranium deals, the Bidens on Ukrainian and Chinese ventures that may have cost U.S. companies like Westinghouse dearly “Hunter Biden’s CEFC Deals: Did They Cost Westinghouse Billions and Shield China from Accountability?”, and the Obamas and Bushes on global influence peddling. Yet Trump’s the villain? The media’s bias and the establishment’s fear of his America-first agenda explain the relentless vilification. As I’ve argued in my trade and bias pieces, it’s time to question the narrative. Look at the numbers, not the headlines. Trump didn’t profit at America’s expense—he paid a price for putting it first.

Read more at NoSocialism.com for the truth on Trump’s tariffs, media bias, and the 2020 election fight. Share this article to expose the double standard!

Hunter Biden’s CEFC Deals: Did They Cost Westinghouse Billions and Shield China from Accountability?

By Juan Fermin, NoSocialism.com June 5, 2025  

The media loves to vilify Donald Trump, painting him as a self-serving profiteer while ignoring the real players cashing in on America’s adversaries. As I’ve argued in my articles on Trump’s trade policies (“How Trump’s Tariffs Are Winning Trade” and “Why China Needs USA More Than USA Needs China”), Trump took a $1.2 billion hit during his presidency to prioritize American industries. Meanwhile, the establishment—think Clintons and Bidens—raked in millions from nations like Russia and China, often at America’s expense. A bombshell claim now circulating suggests Hunter Biden’s deals with CEFC China Energy, a CCP-linked firm, cost Westinghouse, a premier U.S. nuclear company, billions by enabling China to steal its reactor designs. Worse, the Bidens’ coziness allegedly kept Westinghouse from fighting back legally, fearing blowback from then-Vice President Joe Biden. Is this another case of the swamp profiting while Trump gets the blame? Let’s dig into the evidence.

Hunter Biden and CEFC: A Plan to Hand China Nuclear Power

Hunter Biden’s ties to CEFC China Energy, a Shanghai-based conglomerate with deep CCP and People’s Liberation Army (PLA) connections, are no secret. From 2017 to 2018, CEFC paid entities controlled by Hunter and his uncle James Biden $4.8 million over 14 months, per The Washington Post, including $3.8 million in consulting fees and a $1 million retainer for representing CEFC official Patrick Ho, later convicted for bribing African leaders. Hunter also got an $80,000 diamond from CEFC chairman Ye Jianming in 2017, a “gift” he claimed was for a nonprofit but smells like a payoff.

The real kicker? In 2016, while Joe Biden was still Vice President, Hunter and his partners, James Gilliar and Rob Walker, tried to help CEFC buy Westinghouse, America’s top nuclear reactor maker, known for its advanced AP1000 reactor. A strategy memo obtained by Congress reveals their goal: let CEFC “control” the global nuclear market by acquiring Westinghouse, using Hunter’s “interesting last name” to open doors in Washington and Beijing. Gilliar wrote, “Utilising the U.S. face of Westinghouse, combined with the economic power of CEFC (China) is the perfect solution to control this global sector.” The plan was to hide the Chinese purchase behind intermediaries to avoid scrutiny, exploiting Westinghouse’s “significant lobbying power in Congress” to smooth the deal.

Why Westinghouse? Its AP1000 reactor was a game-changer—smaller, safer, and cutting-edge. But by 2016, Westinghouse, owned by Japan’s Toshiba, was struggling, with $13 billion in cost overruns on AP1000 plants in Georgia and South Carolina, leading to its 2017 bankruptcy. This made it a ripe target for CEFC, which saw a chance to dominate nuclear energy, a key CCP goal for technological independence.

Did China Steal Westinghouse’s Designs?

Here’s where it gets murky. The claim that CEFC, with Hunter’s help, stole Westinghouse’s AP1000 designs to build Chinese reactors hinges on prior Chinese actions. In 2010, a PLA operative hacked Westinghouse’s systems, stealing “proprietary and confidential technical and design specifications” for the AP1000’s pipes and routing systems, per a 2014 DOJ indictment. This theft could let a competitor “build a plant similar to the AP1000 without incurring significant research and development costs.” In 2016, another Chinese firm, China General Nuclear Power Corp., was charged with trying to steal U.S. nuclear tech for its Hualong One reactor.

Did CEFC use Westinghouse’s designs? Westinghouse had been working with Chinese partners since 2006, building four AP1000 reactors in China under technology transfer agreements. These deals, legal at the time, gave China access to AP1000 tech, but safeguards were supposed to prevent unauthorized use. However, China’s history of intellectual property theft—evidenced by the 2010 hack—raises suspicions that CEFC or other Chinese firms could have exploited these designs for additional reactors, like the Hualong One, without Westinghouse’s consent. No direct evidence ties Hunter’s 2016 CEFC deal to specific design theft, but the hacking preceded his involvement, and CEFC’s acquisition attempt could have aimed to further exploit Westinghouse’s tech.

The financial impact? Hard to pin down. Westinghouse’s $13 billion overrun and 2017 bankruptcy were tied to U.S. projects, not direct Chinese theft. If China built unauthorized reactors using stolen AP1000 designs, it could have cost Westinghouse billions in lost licensing fees or market share, but no public data quantifies this. The claim of “billions” in losses remains speculative, though China’s nuclear expansion (e.g., 22 reactors under construction by 2020) suggests a massive market Westinghouse was sidelined from, partly due to its financial woes and Chinese ambitions.

Did the Bidens Block Legal Action?

The idea that the Bidens’ influence stopped Westinghouse from pursuing legal action is the weakest link. No evidence shows Westinghouse considered suing CEFC or Chinese firms over design theft, let alone that Joe Biden’s position as Vice President deterred them. Westinghouse’s bankruptcy and Toshiba’s “market weakness” made it vulnerable, but legal inaction likely stemmed from practical issues: proving theft in Chinese courts is notoriously hard, and Westinghouse’s prior tech transfers to China complicated claims. The 2014 DOJ indictment against PLA hackers shows the U.S. pursued justice, but no records link Biden to stifling Westinghouse’s response.

Still, the optics are damning. Hunter’s $4.8 million from CEFC, his push for a Westinghouse deal, and Joe Biden’s role as Vice President create a perception of conflict, much like the Clintons’ Uranium One scandal my earlier point about Bill’s $500,000 Russian speech. Hunter’s emails, calling CEFC’s Patrick Ho the “f---ing spy chief” of China, and James Biden’s belief that Ye Jianming was tied to China’s leadership, suggest they knew CEFC was no ordinary firm. Former Trump advisor Victoria Coates called Hunter’s involvement “beyond outrageous,” given the national security risks. Why would Westinghouse risk antagonizing a Vice President whose son was cozy with a CCP-linked buyer?

Trump vs. the Swamp: A Stark Contrast

This brings us back to Trump. As I’ve shown “The Rise and Fall of Steel Prices”, Trump’s tariffs fought Chinese overreach, protecting U.S. industries while his wealth dropped $1.2 billion during his term. Unlike the Bidens, who pocketed millions from CEFC, or the Clintons, who cashed in on Russian uranium deals, Trump avoided foreign payouts from adversaries. His post-presidency gains came from Truth Social, a U.S.-based platform, not CCP-linked firms. Yet the media, as I’ve detailed (“Media Bias Exposed: J6 Rioters Vilified” and “Lawfare Against Trump”), hammers Trump while giving the Bidens a pass. Why? Because Trump’s America-first policies, like tariffs “Trump’s Tariffs Are Winning—Don’t Believe the Hype”, threaten the globalist elite who profit from China’s rise.

The Bidens’ CEFC saga isn’t just about Hunter’s cash grab. It’s about a pattern—career politicians and their families leveraging influence with nations like China, who’ve been fleecing U.S. tech for decades “Why China Needs USA More Than USA Needs China”. The media ignores this, hyping J6 or Trump’s legal battles “The 2020 Election Debate” while downplaying how Hunter’s deals could’ve handed China a nuclear edge. No wonder Westinghouse stayed quiet—crossing the Vice President’s family isn’t a smart move.

The Bottom Line

Did Hunter Biden’s CEFC deals cost Westinghouse billions? Maybe. China’s 2010 hack of AP1000 designs, followed by Hunter’s 2016 push to sell Westinghouse to CEFC, suggests a pattern of Chinese tech theft that could’ve robbed Westinghouse of market share. But the $13 billion hit was from U.S. project overruns, and no hard evidence quantifies losses from stolen designs. Did the Bidens block legal action? No proof, but the optics—$4.8 million in CEFC cash, a diamond gift, and Hunter’s “big guy” emails—scream conflict of interest. Compare that to Trump, who lost billions fighting for American industries, yet gets vilified by a media that shrugs at the Bidens’ Chinese payoffs. It’s time to call out the swamp’s double standards. Share this at NoSocialism.com and demand the truth!