‘Trump Effect’ Website Takes Credit for $1.3 Trillion of Investments That Began Under Biden

8 July 2025

Creator: MELINA MARA | Credit: POOL/AFP via Getty Images

A striking investigation by Reuters has revealed that nearly half of the investments featured on the White House’s new “Trump Effect” website were actually initiated under the Biden administration or rebranded corporate commitments long in the pipeline calling into question the narrative that President Trump’s policies alone triggered a surge in U.S. investment. Despite grandiose claims that his administration has spurred $14 trillion in investments, the official website lists $2.6 trillion as of July 2. Yet $1.3 trillion of that can be traced back to Biden-era initiatives or standard corporate expansions rather than decisions made in response to Trump’s economic agenda.

Among the projects referenced, several prominent names suggest long-term planning that preceded Trump’s tenure. Hyundai’s proposed $5.8 billion steel plant in Louisiana was selected in December 2024 months before Trump’s inauguration. LEGO’s Virginia distribution center was bolstered with incentives established as early as 2022, and a Chobani yogurt plant in upstate New York entered planning stages in mid-2024. This narrative of rebranding raises questions about whether these “Trump Effect” success stories reflect actual policy-driven decisions or opportunistic marketing tactics.

It’s not just mega corporations; routine corporate expansions also feature prominently. Corning, for instance, received nearly $900 million in funding under the CHIPS and Science Act, legislation passed during Biden’s presidency but its total $1.5 billion investment was spotlighted on the Trump website as an achievement. Swiss pharmaceutical firm Roche even expressed concerns that Trump’s proposed drug-pricing reforms could jeopardize its promise to invest $50 billion in the U.S. casting doubt on whether these pledges were truly inspired by Trump-era policies.

The White House did not hold back in defending its position. Spokesman Kush Desai described President Trump as “the greatest closer in modern history,” crediting his deregulation push and corporate tax cuts for turning “hypothetical discussions into firm investment commitments.” He emphasized that these projects reached fruition during Trump’s presidency, underscoring that policy momentum matters regardless of if discussions began earlier.

Economists, however, remain skeptical. Moody’s Analytics chief economist Mark Zandi noted that forecasts for U.S. investment have barely shifted since Trump took office. He cautioned that structural fundamentals not headlines or announcements drive business spending, and that Trump’s tariff threats may have actually eroded investor confidence.

Criticism has also come from left-leaning analysts and fact-checkers alike. A Reuters explainer labelled the site’s rollout as more of a marketing campaign than a groundbreaking economic record. Meanwhile, conservative voices argue the Trump administration’s deregulation and corporate tax cuts still hold potential to unlock future investment, even if gains are yet to be fully documented.

Beyond the headlines, this debate underscores a deeper issue: how governments claim credit for investments. The Trump Effect site lists no details on selection criteria or verification methods, and some prominent investors have not acknowledged any policy influence stemming from Trump’s agenda. In many cases, corporations cite state and local incentives or broader industry trends as primary motivators. Reuters notes that no transparent mechanism is in place to isolate Trump-era policy impact from ongoing economic activity.

Some industries, notably pharmaceuticals, have leveraged momentum from Trump-era tax relief to amplify commitments. Eli Lilly, for example, announced $27 billion in planned investment over five years after Trump praised the company’s CEO. Yet, Deutsche Bank Securities points out that only a $900 million incremental investment actually resulted over a prior two-year baseline raising questions about whether the headline figure accurately reflects Trump-era stimulus.

As the 2025 presidential cycle heats up, this controversy highlights a broader political tug-of-war: Trump’s effort to reframe economic history and burnish his record versus reality-based assessments of policy impact. If unaddressed, these discrepancies could influence public perception and voter behavior particularly among undecided business and suburban voters.

Just days before Trump’s tariff extension to August 1, this report adds fuel to the narrative that while Trump underscores dealmaking, much of America’s momentum may stem from earlier bipartisan investment drives. The real question now is whether the White House website’s claims reflect genuine economic leadership, or a clever political construct poised to sway the 2025 election.