Trump’s Pledge to Deal With Conflicts of Interest May Be an Empty Promise

It’s not very different from what he has already proposed.

Mike Segar/ZUMA

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


Donald Trump pledged on Wednesday morning to divorce himself from his business operations that threaten to bring enormous conflicts of interest to the Oval Office. In a series of tweets, Trump promised a major press conference on December 15 at which he will reveal “legal documents” that will completely remove him from “business operations.” He provided no details. But his comments indicate he’s not looking at anything different from what he has already proposed—and government ethics experts have said that’s unlikely to address the huge problem at hand.

These experts have pointed out that Trump’s sprawling business empire poses numerous conflicts with his imminent role as president. These include a lease for a government-owned building (which houses Trump’s Washington, DC, hotel), numerous overseas investments in countries such as Turkey and the Philippines (where US foreign policy is under pressure), and massive loans from Deutsche Bank and the state-owned Bank of China.

Trump has previously addressed concerns about his many conflicts by saying his children will run his businesses once he moves into the White House. That is what his recent tweets suggest he will do. Kellyanne Conway, his campaign manager, said on Wednesday morning that his kids will be given more control of the family company. Yet ethics experts have repeatedly said a transfer of responsibility to his children will not alleviate the conflicts.

The issue is the ownership of the businesses, not Trump’s daily role in the operations, says Richard Painter, a former White House ethics lawyer under George W. Bush and a leading critic of Trump’s conflict of interests. “He needs to divest ownership completely, or most all of the problems remain,” Painter says. In other words, as long as Trump maintains an ownership interest, the conflicts will remain. This would be especially true if family members were overseeing these assets. One family member—Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, who is married to his daughter Ivanka—may end up with a senior position in the White House.

With the exception of a few real estate partnerships, Trump has near-complete ownership of almost everything in his portfolio, from Trump Tower in New York City to his golf courses around the world. Even in the places where Trump is only licensing his name or managing a hotel for a third party, personal financial disclosures show that Trump usually has 99 percent ownership of the corporate entity that is being paid by the partner. Trump’s children own little of the family business empire. The one significant stake the Trump children seem to hold in Trump’s many business interests is a shared 22.75 percent stake in his Washington, DC, hotel. (Trump is the managing member and holds the controlling interest in the project.)

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House’s oversight committee, released a statement on Wednesday echoing Painter’s assessment. He noted that Trump should divest himself from his ownership stake in his many companies, put his assets under the control of an independent CEO, and make public his tax returns and financial statements so separation between Trump and his assets can be confirmed.

“Experts on both sides of the aisle have warned that removing himself from his company’s business operations is not even close to removing himself from the financial benefits and other conflicts of interest they pose,” Cummings said. “The worst option—and the one he has offered publicly—would be to allow his children to run the company as they continue to offer political advice and obtain unprecedented access to governmental decision-making, and then return it to him after he is no longer president.”

Cummings has requested that the oversight committee’s chairman, Republican Jason Chaffetz, investigate Trump’s personal finances and how they might intersect with the public interest. Despite pre-election promises to do so, Chaffetz has remained silent on the matter.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate