The intensifying threat of Donald Trump’s emoluments

Donald Trump will once again violate the Constitution’s Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses if he serves a second term as president of the United States and fails to divest from his businesses.

The Constitution requires that, before taking office, Trump fully divest himself from any businesses receiving profits, gains or advantages, beyond his official compensation, from the federal government or the individual states. Without consent from Congress, the Constitution further requires Trump fully divest himself from any businesses receiving profits, gains or advantages from foreign governments as well. To date, Trump has given no indication that he would divest from his businesses during a potential second term, nor seek congressional consent to retain any of the millions of dollars in payments and other benefits he is expected to receive from foreign governments.

The Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses are designed to prohibit financial conflicts of interest by sitting presidents and other government officials. The Foreign Emoluments Clause prevents the president from receiving, among other things, profits, gains or advantages from foreign governments, without the consent of Congress. The Domestic Emoluments Clause prevents the president from receiving under any circumstances profits, gains or advantages from the federal government itself, outside of his or her government salary and benefits, or from the individual states. The framers of our Constitution drafted both Emoluments Clauses broadly, because they were concerned about the many ways a president’s loyalty could be compromised by his or her personal financial interest.

While serving as president, Donald Trump violated the law by failing to divest. Trump never received Congress’s consent to accept the millions of dollars of foreign emoluments he received through payments to his businesses, and did not divest from his business to prevent his receipt of domestic emoluments. Instead, Trump received millions from foreign governments, including a minimum of $5.5 million from the Chinese government alone. 

After his election, Trump acknowledged that his foreign business interests presented “a little conflict of interest”—a remarkable understatement—but took no meaningful steps to address them. Never in our history had a president come to office presenting the same threat of harming America’s national interest in favor of their personal financial interests. And in spite of Trump’s efforts to avoid transparency, publicly available records reveal a mountain of violations of the Emoluments Clauses during his administration, resulting in a level of corruption that has no analogue in American history.

And yet, the scale of Trump’s violations of these anti-corruption laws would likely increase significantly in a second term. Earlier this year, Trump deflected when asked whether he would divest from his businesses during a second term. Instead, he responded that $8 million is “a small amount of money” and that he has earned some of his outside income by “doing services” through his hotels and clubs. Trump did not divest, and Congress did not consent to his acceptance of foreign emoluments during his term in office. Trump has given no indication that he will divest from his business if he secures the presidency again or that he will request permission from Congress to accept foreign emoluments.

Despite his sale of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., which served as a free-for-all opportunity for foreign and state governments to funnel money to him, Trump’s businesses are expected to receive millions of dollars in constitutionally prohibited payments during a potential second term. His business empire still presents many of the same opportunities for foreign governments to funnel money to Trump through hotel stays and lavish celebrations at Trump properties. And now Trump’s majority ownership of a publicly traded social media company only intensifies the threat.

Potential sources of Trump’s emoluments in a second term include, but are not limited to: 

• Trump Media & Technology Group. Trump is the majority stakeholder of the publicly traded Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), which owns the social media platform Truth Social. Trump becomes eligible to sell his holdings of TMTG stock (Nasdaq ticker symbol DJT) as soon as September 20. Any substantial purchase of DJT stock by foreign or domestic governments while Trump holds a significant number of shares would raise emoluments concerns. Various other transactions, including those artificially inflating the market value of DJT stock, could also violate the Emoluments Clauses. The use of personal data, sales of advertising and official government uses of the platform would also pose discrete emoluments concerns.
• Trump World Tower. CREW’s research of the public record indicates that five foreign governments are expected to pay Trump’s business a total of nearly $2 million in monthly fees for units in New York’s Trump World Tower during a potential second term.
• LIV Golf league. Since it was founded in 2021, the Saudi-funded LIV Golf league has hosted six events at Trump clubs. LIV Golf may continue to pay Trump businesses to host golf tournaments during a potential second term.
• New real estate developments in Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. Since 2021, the Trump Organization has signed three new agreements with an international developer for Trump-branded developments in Oman, Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These projects may receive significant benefits from these governments during a potential second Trump presidential term.

Upon winning election in 2016, Trump refused to follow the advice of the Director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), as well as non-partisan watchdogs like CREW, to divest from his business holdings while serving as president. Instead, Trump maintained his constitutionally prohibited business dealings and took steps to keep his financial interests secret, including by refusing to release his tax returns.

During his presidency, foreign governments paid Trump millions of dollars through his businesses. Although the exact number is not publicly known, these foreign emoluments included:

• More than 150 foreign government officials from 77 foreign governments who patronized Trump properties, believing it was “a statement” and showed “a close bond with the United States.” A visit to New York City by the Saudi Crown Prince was the reason the Trump International Hotel there made a profit during one quarter in 2018. 
• Foreign governments hosted or sponsored 13 events at Trump properties, each likely making five and six figure payments, including national day celebrations held by Romania, the Philippines, Bahrain and Kuwait. 
• Before its investigation was prematurely concluded by Chairman James Comer, the House Committee on Oversight and Accountability uncovered that, during just two years in the White House, Trump received at least $7.8 million from at least 20 foreign governments through his businesses. 
• In addition to monetary payments, foreign governments gave Trump other things of value while he held office: 11 foreign governments granted his businesses nearly 70 trademarks; Indonesia gave a Trump real estate project a beneficial special economic status; Dubai developers hired a Chinese company to build a Trump-branded golf club; and local officials in Ireland granted Trump’s golf resort there permission to expand, even as seawater threatens to wash parts of it away. 

Foreign governments made paying Trump’s businesses part of their lobbying strategies. As one diplomat put it in the weeks before Trump took office, “Why wouldn’t I stay at [Trump’s] hotel blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’ Isn’t it rude to come to his city and say, ‘I am staying at your competitor?’”

Trump reinforced the idea that his businesses were an extension of him and his administration. Trump provided paying members of his private Mar-a-Lago club access to and photo ops with government officials, even as world events were unfolding. When meeting with foreign leaders, he would discuss properties he owned in their countries. During a campaign event in 2015, Trump said, “Saudi Arabia . .  . [t]hey buy apartments from me. They spend $40 million, $50 million… Am I supposed to dislike them? I like them very much.” 

These financial conflicts posed serious threats to America’s national security and foreign policy. The Trump administration acted favorably towards countries that subsidized Trump’s businesses, even to the extent that the administration appears to have undermined its own sanctions regimes in relation to specific Chinese and Turkish companies, despite warnings from U.S. intelligence officials that such decisions would harm America’s national security. 

Trump’s financial conflicts also appear to have influenced his administration’s military decisions. For example, Trump supported the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar, despite that country housing a U.S. military base. He also made a sudden decision to pull U.S. troops out of Syria after a phone call with President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan of Türkiye, resulting in the displacement of tens of thousands of civilians and American military allies. 

In response to these threats, CREW and our partners, including the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia, filed two lawsuits seeking to stop Trump’s improper acceptance of emoluments while in office. Two federal appeals courts issued decisions in CREW’s favor, but, after Trump was defeated and begrudgingly left office, the Supreme Court dismissed the cases without resolving the underlying legal issues. Those cases featured the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., which the Trump administration allowed to operate out of a federal building, despite clear language in the lease contract prohibiting it. An Inspector General report found that the Trump administration’s General Services Administration “ignored the Constitution” to maintain this free-for-all opportunity to funnel money to the then-president.

Though Trump has sold his D.C. hotel, he is now positioned to increase the scale of emoluments he could receive as president, including through his majority stake in TMTG. Trump’s DJT stock holdings now reportedly make up the majority of his net worth. Despite difficulties generating revenue, having no clear path to profitability and requiring subsidy from Trump’s political allies and business relationships to stay afloat, the company’s inflated stock price appears to rise and fall with Trump’s own political fortunes, rather than customary business indicators.

Importantly, Trump’s known conflicts of interest are likely to only be the tip of the iceberg. The majority of emoluments that Trump received during his term in office were not planned before the 2016 election. If Trump becomes president again, foreign governments will likely find ways to do business with him that cannot be predicted.

Given the past challenges enforcing the Emoluments Clauses, and the intensifying national security threats posed by Trump’s new financial conflicts, Congress should pass legislation to make it simpler to enforce these clauses, specifically by:

• Requiring presidential and vice presidential candidates to disclose a detailed plan to address actual and potential financial conflicts of interest that would violate the Emoluments Clauses if elected;
• Absent congressional consent for particular foreign emoluments, requiring presidents and vice presidents to divest all assets that would violate the Emoluments Clauses within 30 days of taking the oath of office;
• Creating a transparent procedure for presidents and other officials to seek Congress’s permission when they receive and seek to retain foreign emoluments;
• Empowering the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) to verify the president and vice president’s compliance with divestiture and requiring OGE to make publicly available compliance reports to Congress;
• Requiring the president and vice president to make publicly available certifications, subject to violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for knowing or willful false statements, about their compliance to OGE;
• Amending 5 U.S.C. § 1216 to clarify that the Office of Special Counsel has jurisdiction to investigate issues concerning violations of the Emoluments Clauses and related disclosure and reporting obligations;
• Creating further legal safeguards to protect the independence and efficacy of OGE, including requiring that a president have a legally permissible cause to remove an OGE Director;
• Requiring presidential and vice presidential candidates to publicly release more comprehensive financial disclosures, including greater specificity in amounts for information currently disclosed, beneficial ownership information and copies of their federal tax returns, subject to necessary redactions;
• Extending the conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. § 208, to the president and vice president;
• Amending 18 U.S.C. § 431 to void contracts between federal agencies and the president, the vice president, their immediate family members (including adult children) and businesses any of these covered individuals control; and
• Creating a clear legal mechanism, allowing for declaratory and injunctive relief, to enforce the Emoluments Clauses and divestiture requirements in state and federal court, including against a sitting president in their personal capacity.

Further, even without such legislative action, executive branch employees must abide by their oaths to the Constitution and ethical obligations to refuse to use their authority to enable prohibited emoluments to flow to a sitting president. Executive branch employees should immediately report such incidents to their agency’s Office of Inspector General or the federal Office of the Special Counsel. 

Even absent such reports from agency employees, agency Inspectors General must, consistent with their independent legal obligations, affirmatively build and implement compliance programs to ensure employees do not contribute to illegal activity by enabling prohibited foreign or domestic emoluments. 

Finally, where permitted by law, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) should investigate Trump’s foreign emoluments as they occur and recommend divestment where appropriate—to include investigating whether the Saudi investment in LIV Golf will grant the government of Saudi Arabia and its royal family access to sensitive information concerning government officials and leaders of critical industries who attend LIV golf events at Trump golf properties. 

The framers of our Constitution wrote the Emoluments Clauses for a reason—to protect America’s national interests from public corruption and undue financial influence by foreign governments. Our leaders must act now to enforce our Constitution and protect our democracy from these intensifying emoluments threats.

Contents

• The Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses 
• Trump’s likely emoluments in a second term
  • Trump Media & Technology Group (Truth Social)
  • Trump World Tower
  • LIV Golf league
  • New real estate developments in Oman, Saudi Arabia, and the UAE
• National security and foreign policy risks of Trump’s conflicts
• How the legislative and executive branch can protect against corruption
• Legislation
  • Executive branch ethical requirements and investigatory obligations
  • Review of certain transactions by CFIUS
• Conclusion 

The Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses

Top ⏶

The Emoluments Clauses (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 and Article II, Section 1, Clause 7) were drafted broadly to apply to a wide range of gains, profits or advantages conferred to public officials. At the time, the word “emolument” was a general term referring to profits, gains, or advantages of any kind, including those arising from private transactions, whether directly or through intermediaries. See, e.g., Applicability of the Emoluments Clause to Non-Gov’t Members of ACUS, 17 Op. O.L.C. 114, 119 (1993); Lieutenant Colonel Marvin S. Shaffer, USAF, Retired, 62 Comp. Gen. 432 (1983).

The Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits a president, among other officeholders, from accepting any emolument, present, office or title from any foreign king, prince or state without consent of Congress. The Domestic Emoluments clause prohibits the president’s acceptance of any emoluments, “from the United States, or any of them” under any circumstances, beyond the compensation set by Congress.

During the eighteenth century, European rulers commonly distributed gifts and other things of value to foreign dignitaries, including to Americans. These were called foreign “emoluments” at the time of the Constitution’s drafting. Such emoluments included King Louis XVI’s gift to Ambassador Benjamin Franklin of an opulent diamond-covered snuffbox displaying the king’s portrait. Robert Morris, a founding father and private merchant who served as the first U.S. Superintendent of Finance, was also rumored to have received emoluments from foreign nations when importing military supplies. John Sullivan of New Hampshire was separately suspected of having received emoluments from France to influence John Adams, then America’s peace commissioner in Paris.

The framers understood that a federal officeholder who received something of value from a foreign power could be influenced, knowingly or unknowingly, to compromise the best interest of the United States in favor of their own personal interests. The Foreign Emoluments Clause operates preemptively because, as George Mason warned, when foreign powers seek to influence a public official, it may in some cases be “difficult to know” whether they have actually received a prohibited emolument or not.

The framers separately understood the risks associated with domestic emoluments, having studied the British Crown’s use of various benefits (such as grants of income, pensions and high offices) to influence the British Parliament. Both the Virginia Declaration of Rights and Pennsylvania Declaration of Rights, predating the federal Constitution, stated that state officials are not entitled to receive additional “emoluments” from the state government while serving in office.

In Federalist No. 73, Alexander Hamilton addressed the threat of domestic emoluments at length, warning that the Congress could “tempt [the president] by largesses.” Hamilton argued a preventative rule was necessary to preclude domestic governments from “weaken[ing] his fortitude by operating upon his necessities[, or] corrupt his integrity, by appealing to his avarice,” potentially inducing a president to “renounce or desert the independence intended for him by the Constitution.” Unlike foreign emoluments, Congress may not consent to a president’s receipt of domestic emoluments.

Both Emoluments Clauses apply broadly to any type of gain, profit or advantage conferred to public officials from foreign or domestic governments. The framers “intended the prohibition to have the broadest possible scope and applicability.” To the Sec’y of the Air Force, 49 Comp. Gen. 819, 821 (1970) (referring to the Foreign Emoluments Clause). Accordingly, the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland found that the Constitution’s text, purpose, original public meaning, and precedent from the executive branch all show that “emolument” is meant to be defined broadly to encompass any direct or indirect “profit,” “gain,” or “advantage.” “If there were any doubt as to the limits of the Foreign Clause,” the court wrote, “the Framers used the word ‘any’ twice ensuring a broad and expansive reach.” The district court’s definition is instructive, despite later being vacated by the Supreme Court due to mootness. As such, Trump’s known financial conflicts would violate the Emoluments Clauses in a potential second term.

Trump’s likely emoluments in a second term

Top ⏶

Trump’s predictable and preventable conflicts of interest are disturbing. Should Donald Trump assume the presidency in 2025, his publicly revealed foreign and domestic financial entanglements alone would demonstrate an unmatched level of disregard for the Constitution and conflict-of-interest principles. Should Trump again refuse to divest from his businesses, and absent consent from Congress, he will immediately violate the Foreign Emoluments Clause upon taking office, posing serious threats to national security. 

While Trump’s sale of the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. ended one free-for-all opportunity to funnel money to the former president, Trump’s business empire still presents many opportunities for governments to influence Trump through illegal emoluments. During Trump’s presidency, multiple countries changed course from previous years to hold lavish annual celebrations at Trump properties. If Trump serves as president again, we expect Trump properties to receive a similar influx of business from foreign governments.

Beyond these now-familiar sources of unlawful influence, Trump has opened new and wider avenues to receive illegal emoluments during a second term. For example, Trump’s majority stake in the Trump Media & Technology Group (Truth Social’s parent company) could allow Trump to receive emoluments at an unprecedented scale. In addition, Trump’s increasingly close business relationship with the Saudi royal family, through his business with the LIV Golf league and real estate developments in Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE, poses serious emoluments threats. Trump is further expected to receive unlawful emoluments as he continues to collect payments from other foreign governments through their leases in one of his New York properties, Trump World Tower.

Unfortunately, Trump has left the American people with no way of knowing the full extent of his financial conflicts of interest during a potential second term in office. Before, during and after his presidency, former President Trump operated an opaque network of companies and accounts that hid how he and his family received money from foreign governments. Trump has also vigorously resisted efforts seeking transparency into his complex financial relationships with foreign and domestic governments, including by refusing to release his tax returns. Trump has given no indication that he would stop such obstruction should he be afforded the privilege of serving as president again.

The entities outlined below are just a sample of the massive Emoluments Clause violations that Trump will likely commit if he again serves as president:

Trump Media & Technology Group Corp. (Truth Social)

Top ⏶

Trump launched his social media platform, Truth Social, in early 2022. It is the flagship product of Trump Media & Technology Group (TMTG), led by Trump political ally and former Congressman Devin Nunes.

The publicly traded company (Nasdaq ticker symbol: DJT) provides a remarkably easy pathway for foreign and domestic governments to directly increase Trump’s personal wealth should they trade in, lend money to, purchase advertising from or use his platform for official communications. In fact, Trump may already be receiving what would be prohibited domestic emoluments if he were to become president; the New York State Common Retirement Fund, one of the largest public pension plans in the United States, appears to have invested in TMTG.

In 2021, TMTG was buoyed by a merger with a special purpose acquisition company (a “SPAC”) listed on the Nasdaq. The SPAC was created for the purpose of merging with TMTG and transforming it into a public company, while avoiding the regulatory burdens of the typical “initial public offering” (IPO) process. The SPAC deal was frozen for a time by the SEC, which the company ultimately settled in an enforcement action resulting in two guilty pleas and one fraud verdict for lying to the SEC about the SPAC’s plan to acquire TMTG. 

During the SEC’s freeze, TMTG was reportedly running out of money until it secured last-minute stopgap funding from private investors, including wealthy individuals who worked for and helped finance Trump’s campaigns, as well as entities controlled by a family member of a former high-ranking Russian government official who served in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s inner circle.

Today, Truth Social continues to struggle attracting users and advertisers. TMTG reported that it made just $4.1 million in 2023, while losing a staggering $58 million. Despite the company generating almost no revenue and having no clear path to profitability, Trump’s stake already reportedly makes up a large portion of his estimated net worth, though the value of his DJT holdings fluctuates with the stock price.

Trump’s affiliation with Truth Social is central to TMTG’s ability to function as a business. Despite Truth Social’s poor performance attracting users and advertisers, after the merger the company hit valuations approaching $8 billion. Thus far, the ebbs and flows in TMTG’s valuation frequently correlate to Trump’s political fortunes, including a near tripling in value with Trump’s primary victory in Iowa and his primary challenger Ron DeSantis’s suspension of his presidential campaign. Now that TMTG is traded publicly on the market, at least $300 million is expected to flow into the company. Trump’s DJT holdings, which were recently valued at over $3 billion, represent the majority of outstanding TMTG shares. He becomes eligible to sell them this fall.

Stock purchases and manipulation

As long as Trump is the majority owner, or even a major stakeholder, of TMTG, any substantial purchase of DJT stock by foreign or domestic governments would raise emoluments concerns. 

For example, a foreign state, either directly or through untraceable intermediaries, could arrange for a large privately negotiated sale of Trump’s DJT stock holdings off market (known as a “block sale”) in order to confer a benefit directly to Trump in order to gain his favor, or in exchange for a specific policy decision or public statement. Such payments would be illegal emoluments, absent consent from Congress. And there may be other types of transactions, such as those that would artificially inflate the market value of DJT, which would not only raise questions of market manipulation under the federal securities laws, but also could constitute prohibited emoluments absent congressional consent.

However, while purchases of DJT stock by foreign or domestic governments may pose distinct emoluments concerns depending on their volume and context, it is not clear that all such transactions would necessarily trigger a prohibited profit or gain to the former president. 

For example, the sale of a single share of DJT stock on the open market at fair market value may not be a sufficiently direct profit or gain to qualify as a prohibited emolument, even while Trump is the majority owner of the entity. There may also be a threshold under which a sale of stock is not substantial enough to qualify as an emolument conferred to Trump. The connection to Trump would be further weakened if he is no longer the majority owner or a major stakeholder, either directly or through intermediaries, of TMTG.

Official use of the platform by foreign and domestic governments

Use of Truth Social by foreign or domestic governments and their officials may require users to join the platform to access public services, receive real-time updates or otherwise interact with official government entities. For example, a U.S. state law enforcement agency may announce a new policy primarily or exclusively on Truth Social. Such official uses would likely increase how many individuals access the social media platform. Since TMTG derives a competitive advantage from the “quality, quantity and real-time nature” of its content, the resulting increase in users and data collection may confer a prohibited benefit to Trump.

Advertising purchases

TMTG’s main source of revenue is the sale of advertising on Truth Social. Depending on Trump’s ownership stake at the time, an increase in revenue from governments purchasing advertising on the platform may confer a prohibited benefit to Trump. In addition, critical to TMTG’s ability to generate advertising revenue is its use of cookies, including third-party cookies, to track user behavior across its platform to target personalized advertising. Because cookies pose significant privacy concerns, domestic and foreign governments regulate their use. To the extent that a domestic or foreign government adopts measures that would limit or exempt TMTG from regulations governing that activity, it not only may confer a prohibited benefit on Trump, but it would also raise national security concerns to the extent that personal data about Truth Social’s key users is being shared with foreign governments.

Trump World Tower, NYC

Top ⏶

Five foreign governments are slated to pay Trump a total of nearly $2 million in monthly fees for units in New York’s Trump World Tower during a potential second Trump presidential term.

In 2001, Donald Trump opened a new development in the Turtle Bay neighborhood of New York City called Trump World Tower. “Rising 90 stories alongside the United Nations Headquarters,” according to a marketing brochure for the building, and once featuring the World Bar and UN Plaza Grill, the skyscraper has attracted international buyers since it opened.

Throughout Trump’s term in office and continuing to date, at least twelve of the building’s 363 units are owned by foreign governments and operated as diplomatic facilities. Through their ownership of these units, five foreign governments pay the Trump Organization tens of thousands of dollars in monthly fees, called “common charges.” If Trump is again inaugurated as president, these payments would be unconstitutional emoluments, except in the unlikely scenario that Congress consents to them. 

Saudi Arabia, India, Afghanistan, Qatar and Kuwait all purchased condo units in Trump World Tower between 2001 and 2012 that are operated as permanent missions to the United Nations headquarters across the street. Only Saudi Arabia and India bought units directly from Trump; others paid the units’ previous owners. Qatar purchased an additional unit in 2018. Each foreign government still owns these units.

Table 1. Foreign government-owned units in Trump World Tower

As a result, these foreign governments make monthly payments to the Trump Corporation in the form of common charges. Trump reported receiving $24.6 million in “management and related fees” from the Trump Corporation on his most recent public financial disclosure. 

Drawing on Trump business documents produced by the accounting firm Mazars, a report of the minority staff of the House Oversight Committee released earlier this year documents millions of dollars in unconstitutional emoluments accepted by Trump’s businesses from at least 20 foreign governments through his properties. Mazars’s production included “Status Reports” from Trump World Tower, listing tenants, bills, payments and other information. These show the costs of each country’s monthly common charge payments to Trump in 2018. 

Assuming these foreign governments do not sell their units during a possible second Trump presidency, and assuming they pay their bills on time, the table below shows that these five governments are obligated to pay Trump an estimated $1.95 million over his four years in office, though a recent CREW report found the Government of Afghanistan is late on their common charge payments.

Table 2. Estimated payments to Trump during a second term for Trump World Tower units

Because the government of Qatar sold an additional unit they owned during Trump’s term, the charges associated with it are excluded from this analysis. Units in Trump World Tower held by private owners have also been leased to foreign governments in the past. The associated lease payments may constitute additional emoluments, though it is unknown which foreign governments are currently leasing these units or whether those deals involve payments to Trump.

Absent consent from Congress, the nearly $2 million dollars in “common charge” payments from foreign governments to Trump’s business would violate the Constitution and endanger national security during a second Trump term. Several of these countries, including Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, have appeared to seek influence with Trump through his businesses before.

LIV Golf league

Top ⏶

The Saudi-funded LIV Golf league may continue to pay Trump resorts to host tournaments in a second term, likely violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause.

LIV Golf, an upstart professional golf tour organization largely backed by Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund, was founded in 2021 and has since held six tournaments at Trump’s Miami, Washington, D.C., and New Jersey golf clubs since Trump left office. The fund, named Public Investment Fund (PIF), is chaired by Saudi Prince Mohammed bin Salman and effectively owns 93% of LIV golf. Last year, a federal judge overseeing an antitrust case involving PIF wrote in her decision that, “it is plain that PIF is not a mere investor in LIV; it is the moving force behind the founding, funding, oversight and operation of LIV.”

Trump Organization executives have confirmed that it received payments from LIV Golf for hosting each of its tournaments, although the executives claimed that these payments “were relatively small, beyond covering the costs of hosting the tournaments and any related renovations to the golf courses and facilities.” In addition to the unknown amount of money that Trump’s golf resorts receive directly from LIV Golf, these events bring in business and allow Trump’s resorts to charge more for hotel rooms, sometimes over double the normal rate. In July 2024 for example, Forbes reported the revenue generated by a 2022 LIV Golf event at Bedminster appeared to equal roughly $800,000.

This is not the first financial transaction between Trump’s circle and the Saudi sovereign wealth fund—PIF is the same entity that invested $2 billion in Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner’s private equity firm shortly after Trump and Kushner left the White House. Trump outlined another potential transaction in a deposition with New York Attorney General Letitia James’s office, saying that he believes he could sell his Scottish Turnberry resort to LIV Golf for “a fortune.” Saudi Arabia has apparently sought to influence Trump through his businesses before, starting weeks after he was elected in 2016.

LIV Golf has been in talks to merge with PGA, the longstanding golf tournament organizer which sought to distance itself from Trump following the January 6th insurrection. A merger, of which PIF would be a major investor, would potentially create more hosting opportunities, and revenue, for Trump golf properties in the future. These opportunities are particularly important for Trump’s finances because the golf and resort business is currently the biggest driver of the Trump Organization’s cash flow.

If Trump serves as president and LIV Golf, or a potential merged entity with PGA, continues hosting tournaments at Trump properties, direct payments from the majority Saudi government-owned entity to the president’s properties would present conflicts of interest and likely qualify as unconstitutional foreign emoluments, unless Congress consents to them.

New real estate developments in Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE

Top ⏶

Since Trump left office, the Trump Organization signed three new agreements with the international arm of a Saudi real estate developer to build Trump-branded properties in Oman, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. The Omani development poses specific emoluments concerns, while the other two developments, only recently announced, may also result in prohibited emoluments. These real estate development deals echo the same corruption concerns posed by Trump’s foreign deals worldwide. 

In 2022, the Trump Organization signed a deal with developer Dar Global to license the Trump name to a large Omani real estate development called Aida. Dar Global is the international development subsidiary of the Saudi Arabian company Dar al Arkan. Dar al Arkan is a private company, but it does business with the Saudi government. Some of its executives, including its CEO, are former executives of an Emirati development company called Damac. Damac is partnered with the Trump Organization on other golf and residential developments in Dubai. 

The Aida development will include a Trump-branded resort, golf course and villas. Construction of the Aida development will take 10 years, with a Trump International Hotel and Trump Cliff Villas both scheduled to be completed in 2028. 

The project is already very closely tied to the Omani government. It sits on a plot of land owned by the Omani government, through a government-owned tourism agency. As a recent press release describes the arrangement, “AIDA is a joint venture between Dar Global and the Trump Organization, in partnership with Omran Group, Oman’s executive arm for tourism development.” The development is also a part of a national initiative called Oman Vision 2040 “to diversify the small nation’s economy by building new hotels and golf courses and other tourist attractions.” The Omani government is spending hundreds of millions of dollars to upgrade roads and utilities to promote the project’s development and success. 

 The development’s Trump-branded villas offered for sale in February generated significant interest. A Dar Global executive said they received interest in the 20 villas in 24 hours after launch from 100 potential buyers from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia, the United Kingdom and other countries. The villas have reportedly sold for as much as $13 million. 

The Trump Organization will also manage Aida’s Trump-branded hotel and golf course. While exactly how revenue generated by this project will flow to Trump is unknown, it is likely that Trump will make money from several aspects of his involvement. According to the New York Times, “[i]n previous international deals, the family has traditionally taken a fee in exchange for the use of its name, a separate fee to manage the hotel and golf properties, and a percentage of the profits on the sale of Trump-branded villas, if the prices hit a goal.” Trump reported receiving more than $5 million in royalty income from the Omani deal on his 2023 personal financial disclosure and $2.5 million in licensing payments from the deal on his disclosure this year. 

In January 2024, Dar Global posted a photo of its CEO with Trump at Trump’s Palm Beach golf resort on the social media platform X. The post says, “Discussing progress on Trump International Golf Club Oman and future projects.” In July, the Trump Organization and Dar Global announced their partnership on two additional projects: Trump Tower developments in Dubai, UAE and Jeddah, Saudi Arabia. According to the New York Times, in these types of deals, “the Trump Organization is typically paid several million dollars upon the signing of the deals and then gets a cut of the sales of luxury apartments or condos.” The Dubai tower is planned to launch in 2025. No launch date has been announced for the Jeddah tower. Sometime between Trump’s January meeting with Dar Global on the golf course and the announcement of the Saudi tower, Trump is known to have spoken with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.

There are numerous ways these projects may result in payments by foreign governments to Trump through his businesses. For instance, during Trump’s term, his business partners in the UAE and Indonesia signed agreements with construction firms that the Chinese and Saudi governments have ownership interests in to build developments that included Trump-branded elements. Whether developers on these new projects make similar arrangements or not, the many stages of development these projects will undergo during a potential second Trump presidency are likely to create financial conflicts. Unless Congress affirmatively consents, the planned use of Omani government resources to develop and promote Aida during a potential second Trump presidency would likely constitute prohibited foreign emoluments. 

National security and foreign policy risks of Trump’s conflicts

Top ⏶

It is impossible for the public to know all the ways Trump, his businesses and his family receive money from foreign and domestic governments. Obstruction by former President Trump—including by refusing to release his tax returns—and his allies in Congress is the primary reason for this lack of transparency.

However, information that has become publicly available since Trump left office shows he sought out and received a dizzying number of payments from foreign governments and acted favorably towards countries that paid him. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that the allegation that Trump’s businesses offered his customers “the opportunity, by enriching the President, to obtain favorable governmental treatment from the President and the Executive branch,” which was supported by expert declarations, was sufficiently plausible to grant federal courts jurisdiction to hear his business competitors’ emoluments claims.

National security experts have warned about the risks associated with Trump’s business relationships with foreign nations. Richard Painter, former chief ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush, warned that most of Trump’s business appears to be in countries with “authoritarian governments or democratic governments gravitating toward authoritarianism . . . present[ing] serious national security challenges to the United States” when their diplomatic aims differ from our own. Former National Security Agency official Susan Hennessy wrote that “[f]undamentally, ethics policies governing the Executive and his cabinet are national security protections.” She added that, “the intention of the Emoluments Clause goes beyond mere safeguards against corruption. The founders viewed financial relationships between foreign nations and officials in offices of public trust as a threat to the existence of the Republic itself.”

Unlike any president in American history, Donald Trump treated the office of the president as one of self service, rather than public service. Below are just some examples of then-President Trump’s known conflicts of interest, which may have resulted in harm to U.S. national security and foreign policy:

The People’s Republic of China:

• Trump Tower’s largest commercial tenant for many years was a Chinese government-owned bank, which paid lease and other payments to Trump’s businesses. Trump’s administration decided against sanctioning the company, despite its ties to North Korea.
• Millions of dollars in other payments from China may have influenced Trump’s attempts to protect Chinese telecommunications company ZTE from sanctions, despite warnings from U.S. intelligence officials that the company’s products may be used by the Chinese government to spy on Americans.

The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia:

• Within weeks of Trump’s election, lobbyists representing the Saudi government reserved a block of an estimated 500 rooms at Trump’s DC hotel.
• As president, Trump supported the Saudi-led blockade of Qatar, which houses a major U.S. military installation, and openly questioned the U.S. intelligence community’s conclusion that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman was responsible for the brutal assassination of journalist Jamal Khashoggi, a United States resident, in Istanbul.
• Trump also vetoed a bipartisan resolution demanding an end to U.S. military support for Saudi actions in Yemen due to the Saudi operation’s massive civilian death toll.

The Republic of Türkiye:

• In the words of candidate Trump in 2016, “I have a little conflict of interest because I have a major, major building in Istanbul.” Later that year, Türkiye’s President Erdoğan threatened to remove Trump’s name from the Trump Towers in Istanbul in response to Trump’s Muslim Ban, though the then-president’s name ultimately remained on the towers.
• Trump’s Turkish business interests may have influenced Trump’s stunning 2019 decision to suddenly pull U.S. troops out of northeast Syria after a phone call with President Erdoğan. Erdoğan had sought to launch an attack against America’s long-time Kurdish allies, but was unable to do so with the existing U.S. troop presence. In the days after the U.S. withdrawal, Türkiye bombed the Kurds in the region en masse, displacing at least 130,000 people. Following the attacks, Trump falsely claimed that “the Kurds are much safer right now.”
• Trump’s financial conflicts may have also played into various other favorable decisions Trump made on behalf of Türkiye, including reportedly directing the Department of Justice to terminate its prosecution of a Turkish state-owned financial institution over allegations of money laundering and evading sanctions on Iran; and Trump’s silence when the Turkish President’s bodyguards assaulted U.S. citizens who were peacefully protesting the policies of the Turkish government in Washington, D.C., as President Erdoğan calmly watched.

The Republic of the Philippines:

• Trump’s financial stake in a Trump-branded apartment complex in Manila (earning him millions of dollars while in office), as well as the Philippine Embassy’s decision to pay Trump’s businesses at least $75,000 to host their National Day Reception at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., may have contributed to why the Philippine ambassador noted Philippine-U.S. relations “warmed up” during Trump’s administration. The warming in relations came despite the fact that Philippine leader President Rodrigo Duterte reportedly orchestrated the unlawful killings of thousands of Filipino citizens during this time.

Other foreign nations:

• During a trip to Europe, then-President Trump insisted on staying at his Irish resort in Doonbeg, claiming it was “convenient” despite being on the other side of the island from Dublin, while the Trump Organization promoted his visit. Trump also reportedly pressured the Irish prime minister to meet him at Doonbeg, and threatened to move his visit to Scotland instead if the prime minister failed to agree. When Vice President Pence traveled to Ireland for meetings in Dublin, he also stayed at the president’s Doonbeg property. Pence’s chief of staff said Trump suggested the resort, resulting in further federal spending at Trump’s businesses. 
• Trump pressured the U.S. ambassador to Britain to see if he could steer the British Open to Trump’s Turnberry golf resort in Scotland in 2017. The ambassador, Woody Johnson, followed up on the request by raising the idea with Scotland’s secretary of state, though the attempt was unsuccessful.
• The Trump administration may have waited to impose tariffs on Argentina until after Argentina’s government had approved two trademarks for Trump’s businesses, then imposed them within a month of Argentina’s approval of the trademarks.

Even as Trump claimed to have delegated authority over his businesses to his children via a revocable trust, the revocable trust itself was a half-measure that the OGE director decried as “meaningless from a conflict of interest perspective” before resigning his post. Trump remained the primary beneficiary of his companies and of course remained aware of his business interests, meaning that conflicts of interest very much remained regardless of whether the delegation of control was at all meaningful. 

In addition to the payments and financial interests above, then-President Trump also put national security and foreign policy at risk by taking policy decisions out of the hands of non-partisan agency experts and shifted them to his family members, business contacts and members of his private Mar-a-Lago club. Trump hired his daughter Ivanka Trump and son-in-law Jared Kushner into the government and involved them in U.S. foreign affairs. Ivanka participated in several meetings between Trump and foreign heads of state, including: Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan shortly after the 2016 election while she had several trademarks pending approval from Japanese regulators and was in active discussions to close a licensing deal with Sanei International, whose largest shareholder is wholly owned by the Japanese government; and President Xi Jinping, whose government granted Ivanka Trump provisional approval of three new trademarks the day they dined together at Mar-a-Lago. Reporters from the Miami Herald reported Xi’s visit to Mar-a-Lago was an “unparalleled money maker” and “the most successful promotional event in the club’s history.”

Trump also reportedly leveraged his position as president to give his family and paying members of his Mar-a-Lago property access to foreign and U.S. officials, allowing members to take pictures with policy-makers and even play a role in shaping federal policy. In 2017, a Mar-a-Lago member posted a picture of Trump being briefed on an attack by North Korea at the club and a picture of himself posed with the White House official who carries the nuclear football.

All this helps explain why more than 150 foreign government officials patronized Trump properties during his presidency. These numbers do not include U.S. and state government officials who also stayed and otherwise spent money at his properties during his term, including members of the U.S. military. Due to Trump’s preference to stay at Trump owned or branded properties, the Secret Service alone spent more at his businesses than Trump would have earned as president. 

Even after leaving office, Trump reportedly shared classified nuclear submarine information with an Australian billionaire who only became a Mar-a-Lago member to ingratiate himself with the American president, paying generously to attend galas Trump would attend, while in private saying Trump does business “like the mafia.” 

The Constitution’s drafters understood the dangers of normalized public corruption and the difficulties in untangling complex webs of financial influence. Trump’s financial conflicts of interest illustrate the Emoluments Clauses’ importance—and the urgency that they be enforced.

How the legislative and executive branches can protect against corruption

Top ⏶

Divestment from his businesses is the best way for Donald Trump to protect against violations of the Emoluments Clauses and the resulting national security risks and financial conflicts of interest. Based on Donald Trump’s past actions, it is unlikely that he would voluntarily divest. However, common sense and experience dictate that compliance with the Constitution’s prohibitions on improper influence should not be subject to the whims of a public official actively being paid by foreign governments—even if that person is the president.

Ultimately, Congress must act to create clearer enforcement mechanisms and transparency rules for domestic and foreign emoluments, mindful of any enforcement loopholes the current highly conflicted Supreme Court, Justices Alito and Thomas in particular, may create.

Until that time, federal employees and inspectors general are required to act in compliance with the law as it is plainly set forth in the Constitution, their oaths of office and executive branch ethics regulations. This means refusing to use their authority to enable prohibited emoluments to flow to a sitting president and reporting such incidents to their agencies’ Offices of Inspector General (or the federal Office of the Special Counsel), who in turn must investigate each alleged violation and report them to Congress. Offices of Inspector General must also affirmatively act to build and implement compliance programs to ensure executive branch employees do not contribute to illegal activity by enabling prohibited foreign or domestic emoluments.

Finally, should Trump serve as president again, the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) must investigate Trump’s foreign emoluments as they occur and recommend divestment where appropriate, which should include immediately investigating the Saudi investment in LIV Golf and their partnerships with Trump properties.

Legislation

Top ⏶

Congress should pass legislation to make it simpler and easier to enforce the Emoluments Clauses. These Clauses were designed to foreclose improper efforts to influence the president (and, in the case of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, other federal officials) and constitutionally ensure that corruption does not undermine public faith in democracy.

Former President Trump’s repeated violations of the Clauses during his term—and the difficulty of enforcing them, illustrated by Trump’s ability to delay CREW’s lawsuits until they were mooted by Joseph Biden’s election—made clear that further action is required to ensure the law is enforced.

Require disclosure and divestment of emoluments, absent congressional consent, overseen by the Office of Government Ethics

Congress should amend the Ethics in Government Act of 1978 to require presidents and vice presidents to disclose and divest all assets that might present a conflict of interest in violation of the Emoluments Clauses within 30 days of taking the oath of office. Divestment can be achieved by placing the assets in a blind trust to be sold by an independent trustee or by some other mechanism, such as an arms-length transaction. Funds that are independently managed, widely held and either publicly traded, publicly available or widely diversified are appropriate investments.

The amendments to the Ethics in Government Act should empower the Office of Government Ethics (OGE), which is experienced in ensuring that other executive branch officials address financial conflicts of interest via divestiture, to oversee the process. These amendments should:

• Require presidential and vice presidential candidates to disclose a detailed plan to address actual and potential financial conflicts of interest if elected. The disclosure should include how candidates plan to divest from conflicting assets that would violate the Emoluments Clauses, including all foreign emoluments which have not received congressional consent to date. If candidates intend to use a blind trust mechanism, they must be required to obtain preliminary approval from OGE of the proposed trust instrument within 30 days of accepting their party’s nomination; 
• Modify candidate financial disclosure forms to require greater specificity in amounts for information currently disclosed and require beneficial ownership information for business partners and information about the actual holders of debt and terms of repayment;
• Affirmatively require disclosure of receipt of foreign and domestic emoluments by public officials, including presidents and vice presidents;
• Create a formal and transparent procedure for presidents and other officials to seek Congress’s permission when they receive, and seek to retain, otherwise prohibited foreign emoluments;
• Grant OGE specific authority to promulgate regulations to ensure reporting and disclosure of potential foreign and domestic emoluments, a schedule of administrative fines that may be imposed for violations and a process for referring matters to the Office of Special Counsel for investigation; and
• Require OGE to make publicly available reports to Congress regarding the president and vice president’s compliance with the Emoluments Clauses.

Once in office, the president and vice president must be required to demonstrate they have followed through on their plans to address financial conflicts of interest by certifying to OGE that they have done so. Falsifying this type of report, if required to be filed under the Ethics in Government Act, would not only expose the president and vice president to possible civil and criminal penalties under the Act, but could also lead to a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1001 for making a false statement on a matter within the jurisdiction of the executive branch if made knowingly and willfully. Congress should also amend 5 U.S.C. § 1216 to clarify that the Office of Special Counsel has jurisdiction to investigate issues concerning the violations of the Emoluments Clause and related disclosure and reporting obligations.

All reports and disclosures required by these amendments, and those below, should be publicly available and subject to a right of public transparency. Like it did in the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) and the Federal Election Campaign Act, Congress should confer a clear right for private citizens to obtain these documents and authorize lawsuits in federal court against OGE should the documents be improperly withheld. Congress should allow state courts to hear such claims under the Ethics in Government Act as well.

Finally, because a conflicted president may seek to remove (or fail to appoint) OGE’s director to defeat this disclosure and divestment process, Congress should require that any removal of the OGE Director be for cause and allow the Director to continue to serve beyond the expiration of their term for up to one year or until a successor is appointed and has qualified.

Require disclosure of candidates’ tax returns

The release of Trump’s tax returns provided significant insights into how Trump received payments from foreign and domestic governments. Congress should amend the tax code to remove the confidentiality afforded to presidential and vice presidential candidates’ tax returns, so citizens can understand candidates’ conflicts of interest before voting.

Parties which have been legally granted access to candidates’ tax returns, like the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), should be permitted to release them without penalty. The amendments should also subject candidates’ tax returns to the FOIA, thus permitting the public to demand them, in the event that a sitting president orders the IRS not to release them.

Congress should also further amend the Ethics in Government Act to require candidates to file their tax returns with OGE within 30 days of their nomination or election to the office of president or vice president or by May 15 of that calendar year, whichever is later, but at least 30 days before the election. Candidates for president or vice president, or those holding such office, should be required to release their annual returns on or before May 15 of each succeeding year. These amendments should further specify a limited set of information that a candidate is permitted to redact before submitting tax returns to OGE for publication, and OGE should be granted specific authority to require a filer to unredact information that does not fall into specified categories.

Extend the conflict of interest statute, 18 U.S.C. § 208, to the president and vice president

The criminal conflict of interest statute, codified at 18 U.S.C. § 208, prohibits executive branch employees from participating in particular matters that would have a direct and predictable effect on their financial interests or those of their spouses or minor children. Extending the criminal conflict of interest prohibitions to the president’s and vice president’s financial interests would impose on them the same obligations that apply to other executive branch employees.

Since their domestic, foreign policy and national security duties and obligations are so vast and cut across all economic sectors, the conflict of interest statute, if applied to the president and vice president, would necessitate that they divest all financial interests in publicly traded securities or private business investments since virtually any of them could pose a possible conflict of interest. They could instead reinvest the proceeds into non-conflicting assets, such as diversified mutual funds. While some executive branch employees can resolve their conflicts of interests by recusal from certain official decisions, recusal would not be a viable option for elected officials like the president and the vice president.

Requiring the president and vice president to divest their financial interests would not only resolve financial conflicts of interest, but also would eliminate the risk of emoluments violations that would otherwise arise from those interests, as retention of those assets would no longer be permissible.

Void contracts between the federal government and the president or vice president

Congress should amend 18 U.S.C. § 431 to void contracts between federal agencies and the president, vice president, their immediate family members (including adult children) and businesses any of these covered individuals control. Voiding federal contracts that confer a prohibited profit, gain or advantage would present another strong incentive to divest.

Create clear legal pathways for emoluments clause enforcement

While current law provides for enforcement of the Emoluments Clauses in court, Congress should nonetheless create a clear cause of action to enforce the clauses and divestiture requirements. Any cause of action should explicitly allow for declaratory and injunctive relief against a sitting president in their personal capacity, including disgorgement of profits from constitutionally prohibited assets. An extended statute of limitations for such causes of action would also be appropriate.

An explicit cause of action would increase the potential for enforcement and deter unlawful action by the president or vice president, even in circumstances where Congress is controlled by the same party as the White House. Such claims should be available to a diverse set of prospective litigants, including the United States attorney general, state attorneys general, Congress and private citizens like business competitors.

Additionally, Congress should make clear in the cause of action that a suit can be brought in state court, and that it would remain in state court if a federal court finds it has no jurisdiction to hear the case for any reason. Congress should empower state officials to seize assets that violate the Emoluments Clauses and levy hefty fines, up to ten times the amount of the assets, following a successful seizure.

Executive branch ethical and investigatory obligations

Top ⏶

Even without legislative action to clarify and streamline the methods of Emoluments Clause enforcement, and despite Trump’s threats to destroy the federal civil service, executive branch employees are still required to obey the Constitution. While affirmative enforcement actions would be unlikely during a potential second Trump administration, executive branch employees would remain obligated to prevent—and investigate—violations of the Emoluments Clauses.

Every individual serving in the executive branch, including the president, must swear an oath to “support” and “defend” the Constitution, including by complying with the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses. Taking actions that violate the Emoluments Clauses would violate this oath.

The Standards of Ethical Conduct for Employees of the Executive Branch further require employees “to place loyalty to the Constitution, laws, and ethical principles above private gain.” 5 C.F.R. § 2635.101(a). Executive branch employees also have affirmative duties to disclose “abuse[] and corruption to appropriate authorities” and “endeavor to avoid any actions creating the appearance that they are violating the law or . . . ethical standards.” 5 C.F.R. §§ 2635.101(b)(11), (14).

Consistent with the law and executive branch ethics regulations, executive branch employees may not knowingly enable unlawful emoluments to a sitting president. If an executive branch employee suspects public funds are being improperly directed to a sitting president, including through intermediaries, they must not approve such transactions and should instead refer them for investigation.

For example, under current law, State Department employees are required to clear leases, sales or other uses of property in the United States transferred to a foreign government. Records obtained by Reuters show that, following Trump’s inauguration, at least six foreign countries—as well as the European Union—were approved to lease units in Trump World Tower in New York. Because then-President Trump, through entities he owns, received common charge payments made to the Trump World Tower by tenants, and Congress did not consent to his receipt of them, these payments likely qualified as prohibited foreign emoluments. To comply with the Constitution and their ethical obligations, these State Department employees should not have cleared these leases and should have instead referred them for investigation.

Because a conflicted president could stop any enforcement actions against them, two existing authorities created by Congress to investigate abuse of government resources will be critical to understanding the nature of any prohibited emoluments and ensuring public awareness:

• Inspectors General: There are 72 Offices of Inspector General (OIGs) across the federal government, governed primarily by the Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended (IG Act). OIGs are independent offices within each agency which can both receive and investigate confidential whistleblower complaints, as well as affirmatively “combat waste, fraud and abuse” in agency operations through audits, investigations and reports sent to Congress. The IG Act also authorizes inspectors general to “immediately” report “particularly serious or flagrant problems, abuses, or deficiencies” to an agency head who “shall transmit any such report to the appropriate committees or subcommittees of Congress within seven calendar days.”
• Office of Special Counsel: Current and former executive branch employees can also report potential wrongdoing to the Office of Special Counsel (OSC), which publishes the results of all its cases. If OSC finds a report establishes a “substantial likelihood” of wrongdoing, OSC must refer the complaint to the appropriate agency head, who is in turn required to investigate and submit a written report to the OSC within 60 days, though OSC may grant extensions. OSC then must send the agency report, any comments from the whistleblower, and OSC’s determination to the White House and Congress, and publish the information on OSC’s website. If the OSC does not find a substantial likelihood of wrongdoing, they must inform the whistleblower of the reasons for their determination.

Executive branch employees of the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), for example, may need to call on these authorities during a potential second Trump term. The president is responsible for appointing the five members of the SEC with the advice and consent of the Senate, including the SEC chair who serves as the commission’s top executive. The SEC oversees regulation of securities trading, including issues concerning DJT. While Trump may undermine any enforcement actions during a potential second term, the SEC’s agency staff would still have a duty to review TMTG’s financial and management reports for signs of potential illegal emoluments. If any such signs are discovered, SEC employees would be required to investigate and should report any suspicious activity related to DJT stock to the agency’s Office of Inspector General. 

Review of certain transactions by CFIUS

Top ⏶

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS) is an inter-agency committee, chaired by the Secretary of Treasury, that reviews the national security implications of certain foreign investments. All companies proposing to be involved in an acquisition by a foreign firm are supposed to voluntarily notify CFIUS, though CFIUS can launch its own investigations if a company fails to file. Subject to the president’s discretion, CFIUS can order divestment or other remedies in response to any national security risks presented by such transitions. 

Where permitted under law, CFIUS must investigate Trump’s foreign emoluments. For example, it is unknown whether the Saudi investment in LIV Golf will grant the government of Saudi Arabia and its royal family, or their representatives, access to sensitive information concerning government officials and leaders of critical industries. Such individuals are likely to attend LIV golf events at Trump golf properties, which are the top drivers of Trump Organization cash flow, during a second Trump presidential term.

Separately, both the Trump and Biden administrations have identified the significant risk posed by foreign adversaries’ access to large repositories of United States persons’ data. Given TMTG’s business imperative to collect data on its users (which could include government officials and leaders of critical industries), CFIUS would need to keep a close eye on trade in DJT stock during a second Trump term. CFIUS would also need to understand the advertising data TMTG provides to any foreign government clients, mindful of the continuing effort of foreign adversaries to obtain United States persons’ data to harm the national security, election integrity and economy of the United States.

Conclusion

Top ⏶

More disturbing than Donald Trump’s past disregard of the Constitution and conflict-of-interest principles is the increased scale of corruption and foreign influence he is poised to oversee in a second term, should he not divest from his business empire. Despite the sale of his Washington, D.C. hotel, as it stands Trump’s known business interests would immediately pose serious threats to our national security and violate the Constitution’s Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses if he does not divest and Congress does not consent to his receipt of foreign payments.

Our Constitution’s framers understood, as we do, that personal interest can affect decision-making. They assumed American presidents would at times be tempted to put their own financial interests before the interests of the American people. Further, regardless of what actions a president ultimately takes, the framers understood that the doubt cast over his or her decision-making by active conflicts of interest would inevitably undermine democratic self-governance itself. They included the Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses to preemptively address such financial conflicts before they occurred.

In light of the egregious national security and foreign policy threats posed by Trump’s existing financial conflicts, the stakes for building a clear emoluments enforcement regime could not be higher. Congress must therefore pass legislation to streamline enforcement of the Emoluments Clauses across the board, including by mandating divestment in certain cases.

Yet, even without congressional action, executive branch employees remain bound by their oaths and ethical obligations not to use their authority to enable prohibited emoluments to flow to a sitting president. And Congress’s existing mandate to agency Inspectors General requires they administer proactive emoluments compliance programs and meaningfully investigate reports of violations of the Emoluments Clauses.

The Constitution forbids a sitting president from accepting profits, gains or advantages from the federal government, or the individual states, beyond his or her official compensation. Without consent from Congress, a sitting president is also barred from receiving profits, gains or advantages from foreign governments. Should Donald Trump be afforded the privilege of government service again, these constitutional requirements demand that he divest from his business receiving such government benefits. The threats to our national security, foreign policy and form of government are simply too grave for it to be otherwise.

Illustrations by Miru Osuga/CREW | Photos in header by Kai Brinker and slgckgc via Creative Commons licenses