Trump’s $249 Victory 45-47 fragrance launch fuels ethics debate over presidential profiteering

U.S. President Donald Trump has introduced a high-end fragrance line under the label Trump Fragrances, continuing his aggressive push to commercialize personal branding during his presidency. Marketed as a symbol of “Winning, Strength, and Success,” the new product—Victory 45-47—was unveiled Monday evening on Trump’s Truth Social platform and is being sold for $249.

Available in distinct male and female variants, the perfume and cologne are packaged in gold-accented bottles bearing stylized Trump figures. The name “Victory 45-47” reflects Trump’s dual role as the 45th and 47th U.S. president, further blending political symbolism with luxury consumer branding.

The launch adds to a long list of Trump-endorsed merchandise, which includes $299 “Landslide” boots, a $69.99 Bible, and a $499 gold-plated smartphone. Financial disclosures confirm that Trump’s branded sneakers and fragrances earned him $2.5 million in 2024 alone. Critics, however, warn that the growing merch empire raises new questions about conflicts of interest and the boundaries between public service and private profit.

What is included in Trump’s new fragrance launch and how does it build on past product rollouts?

The Victory 45-47 collection follows previous Trump fragrance lines like “Fight! Fight! Fight!” which launched in December 2024 at a $199 price point. This newest line features stylized bottle art, patriotic marketing, and an aspirational message. According to Trump’s own promotional post, the product “is all about Winning.”

The fragrance joins a merchandising portfolio that has grown increasingly bold since Trump returned to the White House in January 2025. Over the last 18 months, Trump has rolled out Trump-branded watches, mobile phones, guitars, and other high-ticket products under license. Independent estimates place the total value of these ventures at upwards of $600 million in 2024, according to reporting from multiple business outlets.

With each new release, Trump has used campaign-style language and leveraged his social media following to drive direct-to-consumer sales, bypassing traditional retail.

How much revenue has Trump earned from branded products and what are the oversight challenges?

The June 2025 financial disclosure report indicates Trump made $2.5 million from fragrance and sneaker sales in the previous fiscal year. That figure only scratches the surface of his larger commercial enterprise, which includes crypto ventures, NFT collections, and mass-licensed physical goods.

Many of these ventures are structured through the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust, which is controlled by his son, Donald Trump Jr. While the trust model nominally distances Trump from day-to-day business operations, watchdogs have argued that the former president maintains de facto control through public promotions and media appearances.

Federal ethics laws technically exempt sitting presidents from certain conflict-of-interest statutes, creating what critics call a legal “gray zone.” There are no explicit prohibitions against a president profiting from commercial ventures while in office, provided foreign government influence is not involved. Still, government ethics experts argue that the sheer scale of Trump’s enterprise tests the limits of historical precedent.

What ethical concerns are being raised about the commercialization of the presidency?

Watchdog groups such as Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) have repeatedly criticized Trump’s merchandising efforts as eroding institutional integrity. In a report published in March 2025, CREW noted that the Trump Store added 168 new branded items during his transition back into office, generating more than $3 million in revenue in the final quarter of 2024 alone.

The group also expressed concern about the increasingly opaque licensing arrangements that may funnel profits back to the Trump family without clear financial visibility. Legal scholars argue that although Trump’s business empire remains technically within legal limits, it violates the spirit of norms meant to prevent presidential self-enrichment.

Senator Mark Warner recently said the fragrance launch was “grifting and graft, plain and simple.” Senator Peter Welch added that the promotion of luxury goods at a time when Congress debates cutting healthcare benefits “shows a complete disconnect from the public’s priorities.”

How has the White House responded to criticism over Trump’s business activities?

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt defended the president’s merchandise campaigns in May 2025, stating that Trump was fully compliant with conflict-of-interest laws. “This president was incredibly successful before giving it all up to serve our country publicly,” she said. Leavitt dismissed allegations of profiteering as “absurd,” arguing that Americans can distinguish between political leadership and private enterprise.

The administration has not commented on the latest backlash following the fragrance release. However, officials have continued to emphasize that licensing arrangements are managed by third parties and that Trump is not directly involved in product design or distribution.

How are media commentators and the public reacting to the $249 perfume?

Media response has ranged from satire to outrage. Fox News panelist Jessica Tarlov called the product “gross,” saying it represented Trump “profiting off every part of his office.” Her comments came during a debate on whether Senate Republicans were simultaneously pushing cuts to federal health programs.

Consumer reception has also been mixed. On fragrance rating site Parfumo, the men’s variant of Victory 45-47 scored a low 1.9/10. Critics described it as “oriental-fruity” and “generic,” failing to meet luxury standards at its premium price point.

The Independent reported that the perfume bottles include a disclaimer clarifying that they are licensed products not manufactured, sold, or distributed directly by Donald J. Trump—a legal buffer likely designed to mitigate future scrutiny.

Why does this kind of presidential product branding raise larger institutional risks?

Institutional scholars argue that Trump’s branding strategy represents a new form of presidential engagement—one where the line between public office and private enterprise is deliberately blurred. The Emoluments Clause, which prohibits federal officeholders from accepting gifts from foreign states, was previously cited in lawsuits during Trump’s first term. While those cases were ultimately dismissed, the precedent raised enduring constitutional questions.

Since resuming office in 2025, Trump has moved to reverse many of the anti-corruption guardrails installed during his first term’s final years. He removed restrictions on lobbyist gifts and weakened transparency rules for personal financial disclosures. Ethics experts now say the safeguards that once governed presidential enrichment have effectively been dismantled.

Political scientists warn this shift risks turning future presidencies into brand platforms, where symbolic power is monetized in real time. Foreign leaders or domestic companies could seek favor by engaging with Trump-branded ventures, further muddying governance and business.

What do voters and watchdogs see as the deeper implications of Trump’s product empire?

To supporters, Trump’s fragrances and merchandise represent patriotism and entrepreneurship. For critics, they symbolize a corruption of presidential decorum. Independent voters may be more conflicted—seeing the products as simultaneously entertaining and ethically dubious.

Watchdogs warn that if these practices are normalized, future presidents could view the office as a marketing tool rather than a public trust. CREW’s latest report emphasizes that even indirect revenue from symbolic merchandise sets a troubling precedent.

Experts say that over time, this convergence of personal gain and public office could devalue democratic institutions. “It’s not about a perfume,” one former ethics advisor told the press, “It’s about what kind of presidency America is willing to accept.”

Could Trump’s fragrance line redefine political branding in American leadership?

With the release of Victory 45-47, Donald Trump has not only expanded his merchandising portfolio but may have shifted the paradigm of what presidential commercialism looks like in the 21st century. While the product’s financial success appears certain within his base, its broader legacy may hinge on how institutions respond. If watchdogs and lawmakers fail to draw ethical red lines, the future presidency could look increasingly like a business franchise—with all the risks and revenue streams that come with it.