Graduation Address, Kendall College, September 12, 2003

 

Graduation Address, Kendall College, September 12, 2003

 

You will not find anywhere in this brief speech of mine exhortations to excel: presumably you’ve experienced enough of that while studying here. You may find, if you listen closely, ways to comport yourself professionally to become eventually what it is you want to become: the best in the business, which is—let’s face it—one of the reasons (perhaps the only one) you decided to attend Kendall.

 

All of what I mean to touch on briefly this morning relates in one way or another to the pursuit of excellence and involves three very basic approaches to the creative process: experimentation, core values, and communications. An important tangent to the latter (communications) being your willingness to question all forms of expression, whether it’s as fundamental as a new twist on an apple pie or a cook’s inability to comprehend your instructions—baffled by her inability to express herself lucidly; or a challenge from a subordinate who insists that everything you’re doing is crazy.

 

Experimentation. Many years go, the magazine I was affiliated with as editor, Restaurant Hospitality, published a story about Barbara Kafka, one of the most inventive and energetic minds in all of foodservice. In the article, I wrote, “Kafka’s kitchen bubbles with experiments and surprises, with refinements and embellishments, with twists and turns, all discharged in the pursuit of culinary perfection and customer service that her company—Barbara Kafka Associates—never seems able to attain because, as in most of her work, the imperatives of the firm—as laid down and exemplified by Kafka herself—are to supersede past perfections with new standards of excellence. By the way, that’s a nice way to inspire the staff to fresh heights of creativity, or to enhance the firm’s influence or clout, or to keep the competition guessing. Or all three. It is also an effective way of letting potential clients know that what you are able to do for them will be custom-tailored, exclusively theirs, not something cookie-cut from the dough you rolled for a previous customer.” There is not, you must admit, much difference between what Kafka and her crew do to satisfy clients and what any foodservice operation—be it the test kitchen of the Cheesecake Factory or a hotel’s kitchen, or, perhaps, the kitchen you’ll be toiling in—must achieve if it is to remain on top.

 

Let me read to you something from a column of mine that appeared years ago, but that today, has grains of truth in it. I called this particular column, “Ruminations” and I proceeded to list several things about foodservice I like and a few things I don’t, such as “fake flowers on the table and plastic plants hanging from the ceiling are dead giveaways of what to expect from the kitchen.” On a more positive note, I wrote this about our culinary institutions, Kendall included. Quote: Year in and year out, our culinary schools graduate some of the best prepared chefs/cooks/managers in the country. They excel and will continue to excel because, I believe, their faculty and the students they teach question traditional methodologies. Creativity and innovation are a consequence of hardcore self-control, a willingness to challenge historical values and logic, a disposition to mess around with new and seemingly incongruous combinations, knowing what questions to ask, and knowing—finally—that in the striving for new ways of self-expression, we often make asses of ourselves. End quote. That final bit of wisdom (if that’s what it is) is a cute way of saying that as you strive to be the first on your block to implement something new (say a new dish or a new preparation method), you are going to make mistakes.

 

All of you, you’ll have to admit, want to run your own restaurant; or, if that’s out of reach, at the very least, command your own kitchen. Somewhere in between those goals lies your future.

 

Communication. What stands in the way of those goals is not necessarily the limitations you place on your education after you leave here (I’m assuming you’ll continue to learn) or the manner in which you’ve pursued a learning experience here, but in the way you organize your work habits at your first job and your second and so on and so on—the most important not being how well you can fold napkins or create a Charlotte Royale or prepare a pommes soufflé, but how well you communicate with your associates, both subordinate and superior. You can help create an environment, wherever you work, that is either intellectually exciting or vacuous, either stimulating or repressive.

 

Today, we all know (or have heard about) open-door policies, direct lines, hotlines, the internet, email, even the surfacing and open distribution of underground newspapers. All hint at above-board communications. No holds barred. We rap, we touch, we feel, love, talk with eyes, noses, lips, and fingers as well as with larynxes and silver tongues. How many times have we heard someone say to us, “Forget I’m boss; speak freely”? If we plot, we do so openly . . . right? . . even down, sometimes, to discussing the details with our victims. It’s all very powerful and wonderful, all of this freedom of expression. We even rate it with warning labels: G, PG, PG-13, R, and X.

 

But, for everyone who embraces this freedom, there rises up to challenge him or her, the anti-talker, someone who believes that silence is a form of communication. It’s what I’ve decided to call, “proxyspeak.” What’s proxyspeak, you ask? It’s best rendered thus: Blessed is he or she that keeps his or her mouth shut and mind closed and appoints by default others to speak and think for him or her, for such is the kingdom of bliss.

 

Your future restaurant, your future kitchen, won’t run itself, especially under surrogate management. If you surrender to your employees the power of proxyspeak, you’re inviting trouble. If, in your early days as a professional, you become a proxyspeaker—someone who is appointed to speak for that someone else who is in a position of responsibility or authority greater than yours—know well that not only does there exist a communications gap within, but that the operation is hell-bent for trouble.

 

You can lead by example, you can lead by direction, but you cannot lead from a position of silence or indifference, assuming that subordinates understand exactly what it is you want and what it is they are supposed to do. Whether you are in a position to tell others what to do, or you are being told what to do, keep in mind that whatever the decision is, whatever the policy hammered out is, it results from a pooling of many employee thoughts and ideas that, for all intents and purposes, respect the responsibilities of everyone in the restaurant and are in the best interests of all. (OK: what about all of those employee manuals? As far as I am concerned, employee manuals are always a work in progress: there are even variations and permutations of those seemingly inviolate truths that appear in them. They are always subject to alterations and modifications.) And when you reach the top—as most of you will—you must make it abundantly clear, especially in instances where problems appear to be insoluble, that the buck stops at your desk. To do otherwise, to arrive at decisions or explore options through selfishness, vindictiveness, revenge, or games of one-upmanship, undermines your leadership and emasculates the growth of your operation. Ultimately—and from this position there is no retreat—it makes you and those who report directly to you (including, perhaps, your closest allies) suspect and powerless. Anti-communication and anti-talking is deplorable: it implies premeditation, a willingness to fight freedom of expression, to muzzle thought. Lack of communication is less deplorable, but unacceptable nonetheless.

 

If you’ve often wondered why two restaurants—same menu, same décor, same service, same kitchen—differ as does the night from the day: where one is a smashing success, the other an abysmal failure, know that most likely it’s because with the successful operation, management has laid down lines of communication between itself and employees, itself and customers, between itself and the front and the back, that are clear rather than garbled, candid rather than dishonest or evasive, open rather than shut, clean rather than polluted. And that the other—the abysmal failure—collapsed of its own inertia (an inertia of silence, of lack of communication and discussion), its owner, intimidated of anything smelling of intelligence, sucking on a cigar behind the locked door of his office, counting the evening’s take while skimming off just enough to make the next payment on his Mercedes.

 

Core Values. I’m not at all sure how anyone or any business survives and thrives (or prevails) without them. The very essence of your commitment to your growth, to your ability to create and then to sell your services and products, lies within the values you establish, then implement and respect, regardless of challenges or confrontations that question your motives. The power of core values (unlike the rules and regulation you’ll find in an employee manual), when spelled out articulately and sensibly, is that they provide a basis for every relationship you nurture—from the relationships (your communications) among internal customers (your employees) to those with your external customers—your guests. The problem, of course, is in establishing a set of core values that are meaningful and then are executed with a genuine reverence for their implications.

 

If you haven’t given any thought to creating for yourself a set of core values, there’s no time like the present to start.

 

I will give you my set of core values in a moment; and I will share with you points of view I have made over the past 30 years or so observing the comings and goings of people and places in foodservice; but, before I do that, let me share with you first the comments of Scott Cowen, professor of management, the Weatherhead School of Management, Case-Western Reserve University, Cleveland.

 

Cowen recounts a conversation he had with a friend, during which he described a unique set of core values of—believe this—Harley-Davidson, Inc. As you may know, Harley-Davidson is one of the great turnaround success stories of the past 30 or so years. Cowen believes that it was the result of the company’s core values. Here, says Cowen, is what his friend told him:

 

“At Harley-Davidson, the unique set of values revolves around these principles: tell the truth, keep your promises, be fair, respect the individual, and encourage intellectual curiosity. Harley-Davidson’s values are embedded in the company’s culture to such a great extent that its employees would have a higher probability of being fired for behaving inconsistent with the organization’s culture (its values) than they would for poor performance.

 

“In other organizations,” Cowen continues, “with strong core values, these values seem to define who they are as well as their philosophy of management. When doubts arise, their core values provide a framework for decision making and behavior. There is a strong correlation between organizations that have a well-articulated, sincerely felt set of core values and those demonstrating successful performance. Organizations lacking such values are operating without any sort of ‘spiritual compass’ to chart their course and guide their actions. It is difficult for me,” says Cowen, “to believe that any organization can be a high performer without also having a strong, shared sense of who they are and what they believe.”

 

Finally, according to Cowen, “If it is well done, the process of setting its core values can bring an organization closer together and give it a sense of united purpose.”

 

Now then, because when Penton Media hired me back in 1966, there was not a set of core values there, I decided to establish my own. I knew that Penton had hired me (for the princely sum of $650 a month) because of my resume, because of where I came from (teaching English literature and creative writing at Muskingum College), because of where I was educated. It hired me because it believed in me and my potential. It hired me because it wanted someone who could write and it assumed—after three interviews—that I was the one to do just that.

 

Once at Penton, I was not about to let it down. I was not about to let myself down. At the time, I wasn’t thinking about the commencement address my father gave when I graduated from high school in 1953, but something in and about it must have soaked in because the set of core values I set for myself in 1966 on the first day of my employment at Penton bore a remarkable resemblance and, need I say, relevance, to what he told our high school graduating class. So, in writing this simple talk for you, I went back to the manuscript that was my Father’s simple talk and I read it. The charge to the class was completely absent of the sorts of clichés one reads or hears about in so many graduation addresses. Rather, it was filled with an appreciation of what life’s truths are about and how, if you truly embrace and believe in them, they can motivate you do to bigger, better, and greater things. Here’s some of what he told us. They are the essence of the core values I brought to my job as an editor; and ones you might consider bringing to yours.

 

Quote: “The real test of character comes when we are confronted with a choice between good and better; between a good life work and a better life work, between a good book and a masterpiece; an infatuation and an ideal life partner. Some people choose a loyalty to their self so narrow that it excludes all other loyalties to family, school, place of worship, work, society, and country. Some place loyalty to a small group to which they belong above that of the community; loyalty to a party above that of the country; loyalty to the contents of the pocketbook above the outreaching heart; loyalty to personal comfort above creative adventure; loyalty to privileges above principles; loyalty to fiction and prejudice above truth.” End quote.

 

There was more, lots more: quotes and anecdotes all supporting loyalties and the pursuit of what is right. He concluded his comments with this: “The world into which you are going needs your loyalty to higher values, to values that make life noble and beautiful. The world in which we live will present you with endless situations challenging you to choose between lesser and greater loyalties, lesser and greater values.”

 

Now, before closing, let me share with you a conversation with a foodservice executive—now retired—I’ve had a deep admiration for over the years.

 

Many years ago while still at Penton, Michael Kay called me and wanted to know if I would like to write a story about his collaboration with John Portman on a new hotel company, The Portman Hotel Company. It was Portman, you may remember, who designed all of those wonderful Hyatt hotels with their magnificent atriums. Kay told me that Portman would be opening his first hotel in San Francisco and would I like to come and take a look and while there talk to him and Portman. I said, of course, provided there would be a foodservice angle. He assured me there would be, but far more important was the approach he—with Portman’s approval—was taking to establish relationships with employees. For the longest time, going back to the days when Michael Kay was president of the Omni Hotel Co., I had known him to be a man of warmth and compassion; a man who looked out for and believed passionately in human rights; who, whether he admitted it or not, worked according to principle and core values. During the course of our conversation over a couple of drinks in the cocktail lounge of this magnificent new hotel, Michael Kay, in response to my question about management/employee relationships, told me this, “Until you construct a system that treats people the same way, that gives people the same rights, that gives people the same voice and the same dignity—you will always be courting misfortune brought about by back-biting and mutual distrust. The people who work within the system must know it’s as important to practice human justice as it is to make a buck.”

 

So, that’s it: experiment, communicate, and set for yourself a set of core values (or if you can’t set some for yourself, make sure the company or restaurant you work for or manage or own, has a set).

 

Good luck. With the intelligence you’ve acquired here and with the growing demand for qualified and well-educated people (either book or street smart), you’ve got a fantastic future waiting for you in foodservice.

 

Let me leave you, finally, with this choice bit of advice: “Never argue with an idiot. People watching may not be able to tell the difference.”    

 

REMEMBER THE HYPOCRITES

 

LET'S NOT FORGET EPSTEIN

 

SCUM AND SLUSH

 

CORRUPTOR IN CHIEF

 

SCUMBAG'S SLUSH FUND

 

NEVER BEFORE - There Has Never Been an Example of Presidential Corruption Like This

 

There Has Never Been an Example of Presidential Corruption Like This

May 20, 2026

By The Editorial Board

The editorial board is a group of opinion journalists whose views are informed by expertise, research, debate and certain longstanding values. It is separate from the newsroom.

Has there ever been an episode of presidential corruption so blatant and threatening to constitutional order? Certainly not in modern times. President Trump’s Justice Department is using taxpayer money to create a $1.8 billion political slush fund. Ostensibly set up to compensate those who the department claims have “suffered weaponization and lawfare,” it will in fact reward loyalists willing to defy the law and commit violence on behalf of the president.

The fund manages to combine three of Mr. Trump’s most alarming behaviors. One, it is an obvious form of corruption, coming from a president who has used his office to enrich himself, his family and his allies. Two, the fund continues his pattern of using the Justice Department as an enforcer to punish his perceived opponents and protect his friends and allies. Three, the fund is his latest attempt to rewrite history about the 2020 election and the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on Congress.

It is worth pausing to put the fund into the larger context of Mr. Trump’s political project: He is destroying pillars of American democracy to empower himself. He claims elections are legitimate only if he wins. He uses federal law enforcement to investigate and prosecute his perceived enemies. He purges his party of officials who defy him. He describes members of the other party and civil society as traitors and enemies. He incentivizes his supporters to break the law on his behalf and rewards them when they do. He directs his allies to change election rules to keep his party in power.

Mr. Trump’s project has not yet succeeded, at least not fully. Many Americans — in the judicial system, in Congress, in state governments and elsewhere — continue to stand up for democracy and oppose his autocratic ambitions. By now, though, nobody should have illusions about what he is attempting to do.

The fund’s existence is a story of political self-dealing. It is nominally the product of a flimsy personal lawsuit that Mr. Trump filed this year against the Internal Revenue Service, which he oversees, over the leaking of his tax returns during his first term. That lawsuit led to an absurd negotiation, in which the lawyers on one side worked for Mr. Trump the citizen and those on the other side worked for Mr. Trump the president.

Adding to absurdity, the government lawyers reported to Todd Blanche, the acting attorney general, who previously worked as Mr. Trump’s personal lawyer. A federal judge in Miami helping to oversee the case, Kathleen Williams, pointed out that the two sides were not adversaries, which called into question the process. Even Mr. Trump acknowledged the situation shortly after filing the suit by saying, “I am supposed to work out a settlement with myself.”

Yet the talks proceeded because Mr. Trump’s Justice Department was in charge. Unsurprisingly, they led to a deal that was extremely favorable to him.

In exchange for the president’s dropping the suit against the I.R.S., both he and his supporters will receive government handouts. For Mr. Trump, the handout comes in the form of permission to have cheated on his taxes. The government has granted him and his family immunity from ongoing audits of his tax payments. He has a long history of using questionable accounting maneuvers, and the audits could have cost him more than $100 million, experts have said. Now they will cost him nothing.

For his supporters, the handouts will come from the slush fund. The Justice Department will tap a permanent stream of revenue that Congress created in 1956, known as the Judgment Fund, to settle lawsuits against the federal government. As Paul Figley, a former Justice Department official, noted, the new fund appears to be both legal and at odds with Congress’s intent. “It’s horrible policy,” Mr. Figley told The Times.

The department has allocated $1.8 billion for what it calls, in an Orwellian flourish, an Anti-Weaponization Fund and invited applications from people who have been targeted for “political, personal or ideological reasons.” Mr. Blanche — who holds his position as acting attorney general largely because of his willingness to use federal power in service of Mr. Trump’s personal whims — will appoint a five-member board, with congressional leaders given input on one of the five. Mr. Trump can fire any of the members at any time.

To understand who is likely to receive payments, look at who has previously received settlements from the Justice Department. Michael Flynn, who was briefly Mr. Trump’s national security adviser in 2017, received $1.25 million, even though he pleaded guilty to lying to F.B.I. agents. The family of Ashli Babbitt, who participated in the Jan. 6 riot, and whom federal agents shot as she and others approached the House floor, received nearly $5 million, even though investigators cleared the shooters of wrongdoing. The Trump administration is paying off people who committed violence and crimes, as long as they are Trump allies.

The fund’s timeline is the giveaway of how Mr. Trump plans to use it. The Justice Department said the fund would stop processing claims on Dec. 15, 2028, weeks before the president is to leave office, ensuring the money is distributed while he still holds the power to fire anyone who objects. The window is precisely the window of Mr. Trump’s authority.

Even some of Mr. Trump’s usual defenders are unhappy. Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and the majority leader, meekly said that he was “not a big fan” of the fund. Brian Morrissey, the Treasury Department’s general counsel, resigned within hours of the announcement, seven months after the Senate had confirmed him.

Providing payoffs is only part of the point. Another, according to Mr. Blanche, is “ensuring this never happens again.” What, exactly, is “this”? The evenhanded enforcement of the law.

The Trump administration has already fired federal agents who did their duties by investigating the president’s attempts to overturn the 2020 election. Mr. Trump has issued blanket clemency to more than 1,500 Jan. 6 rioters, some of whom may soon receive payments. His Justice Department secured an indictment of James Comey, the former F.B.I. director, on dubious charges as retribution for his role in the investigation of the 2016 Trump campaign’s Russia ties. The fund continues the effort to turn law enforcement into a tool of raw political power.

The fund also encourages future lawlessness on Mr. Trump’s behalf. It sends the message that he will use his power not only to shield people who break the law from accountability but also to shower benefits on them. Just as punishment is a deterrent, rewards are an incentive.

After President Richard Nixon’s abuses in the Watergate scandal, Congress and the executive branch built rules and traditions to ensure that federal agencies, especially the Justice Department, operated in the public interest, rather than that of the president. Mr. Trump has tried to break this system. Once he is gone, it will need to be rebuilt, and better than before. He has exposed and exploited its flaws and gaps. Unless they are filled, Mr. Trump’s corruption and perversion of justice risk becoming the norm.

In the meantime, Americans should be cleareyed about what the president is doing. He is taking their money and showering it on criminals.

Trump’s Government Moves to Spare an Unhappy Taxpayer Named Trump

 

Trump’s Government Moves to Spare an Unhappy Taxpayer Named Trump

No president has ever used the federal government to advance his own personal interests and those of his family and allies as expansively and openly as Mr. Trump has.

President Trump seems even less inhibited by the rules, written or unwritten, that governed his predecessors. Credit...Doug Mills/The New York Times

 

By Peter Baker

Peter Baker, the chief White House correspondent, is covering his sixth administration and has written multiple books on the modern presidency.

May 20, 2026

 

It is hard to imagine that any previous president would have thought he could engage in such an audacious act of self-dealing.

Sue the government he runs, then settle the lawsuit with himself by barring the Internal Revenue Service from auditing his past returns. And as part of that deal, hand over $1.8 billion of taxpayer money to his allies.

President Trump has used the federal government to advance his own personal interests and those of his family and allies more expansively and openly than any past occupant of the White House. Any review of history would suggest that it is not even close.

But as Mr. Trump, the only convicted felon ever elected president, heads deeper into his second term, he seems even less inhibited by the rules, written or unwritten, that governed his predecessors. While deeply unpopular with the general public, he has demonstrated as recently as this week that he remains the undisputed master of his own party, and therefore appears to feel that he can do as he likes without fear of Congress standing in his way.

His self-granted writ of immunity from the I.R.S. amounts to a get-out-of-audits-free card, essentially the equivalent of pardoning himself for any past offenses and forgiving any tax debt or penalties. While the status of any now-short-circuited audits is not publicly known, his action could theoretically save him from paying $100 million or more, based on past estimates of what his liability might have been under an unfavorable I.R.S. decision.

The I.R.S. audit exemption for himself, along with the taxpayer payout to his supporters — potentially including those who attacked the Capitol and beat police officers on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to overturn an election that Mr. Trump lost — stand out in their brazenness, yet not in what they say about his underlying approach to governance in his sixth year in office.

Mr. Trump has so blurred the lines between his financial interests and his public office that it is hard to define where the lines lie anymore, or if they still exist. He, his family and his friends have made a fortune in the 16 months since he returned to power in ways that once would have been seen as conflicts of interest and possibly generated investigations.

“Presidents have had corrupt, even criminal, family members,” said Barbara A. Perry, a presidential scholar at the University of Virginia’s Miller Center, citing, among others, Hunter Biden. “But none of them succeeded to the extent of the Trump family in the level of graft achieved.”

She added: “They have won the presidency twice, emasculated Congress, created a supportive high court, and reshaped the law and institutions to absolve them of any wrongdoing, while making billions of ill-gotten dollars.”

Anna Kelly, a White House spokeswoman, rejected the assertion.

“This is the same tired narrative that Democrats have pushed against President Trump, his family and his administration for a decade,” she said. “President Trump only acts in the best interests of the American public — which is why they overwhelmingly re-elected him to this office, despite years of lies and false accusations against him and his businesses from the fake news media. There are no conflicts of interest.”

While generally not covered by conflict of interest laws that apply to other government officials, presidents especially in the post-Watergate era have followed certain practices and abided by self-imposed limits to assure the public and feared a political price, at the least, if they did not. But Mr. Trump, already shielded from further criminal prosecution for acts deemed to be official under a new presidential immunity doctrine devised by the Supreme Court, has dispensed with such customs.

Just last week, a disclosure form indicated that Mr. Trump’s investment portfolio executed more than 3,600 trades in the first three months of this year alone, many involving companies that he has favored with access or policies. His portfolio bought stock in companies run by 15 of the 17 chief executives he brought with him to China last week. The timing of some purchases has raised questions about whether they were related to statements he made or to policies he embraced.

The Trump Organization, his family-owned business, said that the trades were made by outside brokerage firms, and that he, his family and his firm did not have any role in deciding what stocks to buy or sell. But unlike other modern presidents, Mr. Trump has not put his investments in a genuine blind trust, since, as the disclosure form made clear, it is no secret to him what companies he has shares in as he goes about making policy decisions.

His family has profited enormously off his new cryptocurrency business at the same time the president has rolled back regulation of the industry. Mr. Trump pardoned the founder of the cryptocurrency exchange Binance, which was involved in helping the Trump family build its crypto start-up. Jeff Bezos, whose businesses receive federal contracts and depend on U.S. Postal Service rates, approved paying an estimated $28 million to Melania Trump, the first lady, for a self-promotional film streamed on Amazon.

Mr. Trump’s sons and son-in-law are involved in multibillion-dollar business ventures in the Gulf Arab states at the same time the president is making those nations favorites of his foreign policy. An investment firm tied to the United Arab Emirates made a $500 million investment in the Trump crypto firm just days before his inauguration. The Trump administration later approved the export of advanced chips to the U.A.E. Altogether, Bloomberg has estimated that the family’s crypto investments have increased its net worth by more than $1 billion, at least on paper.

Image

The Trump family during the State of the Union address in February.Credit...Eric Lee for The New York Times

Polls show that most of the public has concluded that Mr. Trump is leveraging the presidency for his own benefit. A poll by YouGov in March found that 54 percent of Americans believed the term “corrupt” applied “a lot” to the president, up from 46 percent a year earlier.

Democrats lashed out after the announcement of the $1.8 billion fund for Mr. Trump’s allies and the I.R.S. immunity. “A stunning act of corruption,” said Senator Ron Wyden of Oregon. “A scam,” wrote Representatives Richard Neal of Massachusetts and Jamie Raskin of Maryland. “This one is just eye-popping unbelievable,” said Senator Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts.

Even some Republicans indicated unease with the arrangement. Senator John Thune of South Dakota, the majority leader, said he was “not a big fan” of the taxpayer fund for Mr. Trump’s supporters. Representative Brian Fitzpatrick of Pennsylvania went so far as to say that “we’re going to try to kill it.”

But the Republican congressional majorities, which eagerly pursued corruption allegations against President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his family, have until now shown little interest in scrutinizing Mr. Trump’s blending of personal and public interests. And Mr. Trump demonstrated once again on Tuesday with the defeat of Representative Thomas Massie of Kentucky in a Republican primary that he still wields unrivaled power to punish those who cross him.

Speaking with reporters on Wednesday, Mr. Trump defended his lawsuit against the I.R.S. over a contractor illegally providing his tax forms to reporters. The contractor has since been convicted by the Biden Justice Department and sentenced to prison, but Mr. Trump argued the agency itself should still be held responsible.

He nonetheless acted as if he had nothing to do with the eventual deal negotiated by lawyers who work for him, including the acting attorney general, Todd Blanche, who was his personal defense attorney in criminal cases before the 2024 election.

“I guess they made a settlement of some kind,” Mr. Trump said. “I wasn’t involved in the settlement. I could have been involved. But I didn’t choose to be.” He did not explain why the release of his tax forms, even if the government were to be held liable, should preclude him from being held responsible if he underpaid his taxes.

As for the $1.8 billion fund, it is to go to those people who were supposedly mistreated by the Justice Department under Mr. Biden, which could include the Jan. 6 attackers, who were already pardoned by Mr. Trump. “People were destroyed,” he said. “They went to jail. Their families were ruined. They committed suicide.” He made no mention of the police officers who were assaulted or later died.

Mr. Trump is an unabashed tax avoider — “that makes me smart,” he famously said in 2016 — and his tactics have repeatedly drawn scrutiny. The Trump Organization, wholly owned by his family, was convicted in criminal court in 2022 of 17 counts of tax fraud, a scheme to defraud, conspiracy and falsifying business records for doling out off-the-books perks to some of its top executives. The company was given the maximum fine of $1.6 million. His chief financial officer, Allen H. Weisselberg, pleaded guilty to 15 counts and spent several months in jail.

For years, Mr. Trump fought to keep his tax returns hidden from the public, unlike every other modern president who voluntarily released them. Tax documents obtained by The Times in 2020 showed that he paid only $750 in federal income taxes in 2016, when he originally ran for president on the basis of being a successful billionaire businessman, and only $750 in 2017, his first year in office.

In 10 of the previous 15 years, Mr. Trump paid no income taxes to the federal government whatsoever, by reporting large losses. A yearslong audit battle with the I.R.S. could have cost him $100 million absent this week’s arrangement, according to a Times analysis of his returns in 2020, a sum that could be significantly higher with six more years of interest.

Other presidents have traditionally done whatever they could to avoid looking like they were skimping on taxes, trading the markets, making money off policy decisions or using taxpayer funds to reward political allies. While many modern presidents have cashed in after leaving office, none have made the kind of money that Mr. Trump and his family have during their time in the White House.

Even the most notorious presidential financial scandals in history — Credit Mobilier during Ulysses S. Grant’s administration, Teapot Dome during Warren G. Harding’s presidency and Watergate during Richard M. Nixon’s tenure — did not come close to the money swirling around the Trump family during his second term.

“Not only do the three most infamous previous presidency financial-political scandals seem minor compared to Trump’s,” said Ms. Perry, the presidential scholar, “but none of the three presidents — Grant, Harding, Nixon — padded their own bank accounts.” People around Grant and Harding traded public policy for money, but there was no evidence that the presidents themselves profited. And the money raised by Nixon’s team went to his campaign dirty tricks slush fund and hush money for the Watergate burglars, rather into the president’s pocket.

As of Wednesday, Forbes magazine estimated Mr. Trump’s net worth at $6.1 billion, up from $5.1 billion last year and $2.3 billion in 2024.

Mr. Trump has insisted that he does not make policy decisions based on his own interests, and has accused those who have investigated him and his allies over the years of political persecution. But as he grows more settled in office, he appears less concerned about the way his actions look. He told The Times in January that he saw no benefit in following the presidential traditions of blind trusts, divestment of assets or avoiding business deals.

“I prohibited them from doing business in my first term,” he said of his family, “and I got absolutely no credit for it. I didn’t have to do that. And it’s really unfair to them.” Critics would argue that he in fact did not fully distance himself from business in his first term. But he noted that it did not make a difference: “I found out that nobody cared, I’m allowed to.”

Peter Baker is the chief White House correspondent for The Times. He is covering his sixth presidency and sometimes writes analytical pieces that place presidents and their administrations in a larger context and historical framework.