Sprinkler systems for high-rise buildings are very expensive to install and maintain. That's probably why New York developers fought to avoid the installations, and they probably made compromise deals with the code people for installation of extra fire walls, automatic-closing doors, etc. to avoid sprinklers.
The primary reason they are so expensive is because of water head. If you were to supply one sprinkler head at the top of Trump Tower from a street level water source with no intermediate booster pump(s), it would require around 300psi of pressure - which is not practical. Therefore, booster pumps have to be installed in equipment rooms at various levels to achieve sufficient sprinkler head pressure at nominal flow. And, it may well be that an emergency electrical power supply (diesel or NG generators) for the pumps would be required as well.
Further, city water mains must be able to supply adequate volume for worse-case fire situations, and do so without completely starving the mains of water for other fire fighting needs.
In addition to all that, the codes always require stringent annual maintenance, inspection and testing of these systems, further adding to long-term cost.
It's very complex and requires a lot of design and planning to implement. Retrofitting an existing building is an even bigger mess. I'm just trying to provide an off-the-cuff perspective to help explain why Trump and other developers would fight against sprinkler codes.
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
