President Trump's family businesses made $2.2 billion last year, according to his annual financial disclosure. A report from NPR on July 16, 2026, found that Pennsylvania swing voters are split right down the middle on whether that is a problem.

Federal officials are required to file financial disclosures each year. These forms list where their money comes from. Trump's filing showed that much of the $2.2 billion came from cryptocurrency, which is digital money that exists only online. The Office of Government Ethics, the agency that oversees these filings, certified Trump's disclosure. The New York Times first reported the $2.2 billion figure on June 30, 2026.

NPR watched two online focus groups on July 14, 2026. A focus group is a small gathering of people who share their opinions, and it is not the same as a poll. Twelve Pennsylvania voters took part. The sessions were run by the Swing Voter Project, a partnership between the messaging firm Engagious, the market researcher Sago, and NPR. Rich Thau, president of Engagious, led both groups.

Six voters were troubled by Trump earning money while in office. Six were not.

Bhavana G., a 54-year-old independent voter, said the earnings raised concerns about abuse of power. Todd A., a 62-year-old independent, said he believes "just about every politician is corrupt" and called Trump a "known huckster."

Betsy D., a 48-year-old Republican, said the wealth increase was "typical behavior" for a businessman and politician. Ken J., a 44-year-old Republican, said he was not concerned because the earnings did not appear to have been made illegally.

Thau, the moderator, said the responses reflected "the voice of extremely cynical voters whose expectations for politicians are remarkably low."

Pennsylvania's swing voters have helped decide recent presidential elections. Their reactions to Trump's disclosures offer an early look at whether his business activities while in office could change how these voters feel.

The focus groups cannot be treated as a poll. Twelve voters is a small sample meant to surface the arguments and language that connect with swing voters, not to measure how common those views are. But the split Thau saw mirrors a broader pattern: some voters think a public official getting richer in office is always suspicious. Others apply a simpler test: if no law was broken, they move on.

For people who craft political messages in Pennsylvania, the focus groups suggest that criticism based on the appearance of corruption may run into a wall with voters who already expect little from politicians. The voters who dismissed the disclosures did not argue the earnings were justified. They assumed that politicians enrich themselves as a matter of course. That view weakens disclosure-based criticism, at least among the Republican and Republican-leaning participants.

The independent voters who were concerned did not focus mainly on whether the earnings were legal. They focused on the power dynamics that produced them.

Whether cryptocurrency income registers differently with swing voters than more familiar sources, such as real estate or brand licensing, is a question the focus groups did not fully answer.

The next Swing Voter Project sessions, held monthly, will show whether these attitudes harden or shift as the disclosures get more coverage.