Senate Democrats Will Introduce Legislation to Force Trump to Deal With His Conflicts

“The American people deserve to know that their President is putting the United States’ interests before his own.”

John Raoux/AP

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


Five top Senate Democrats say they will introduce legislation when Congress returns for its new session in January that would force Donald Trump to sell off at least some of his assets and solve his complicated conflict-of-interest problems. Trump owns hundreds of businesses and has a broad range of financial interests, from traditional investments such as stocks and bonds to large real estate holdings to licensing deals in the United States and abroad. Trump also has significant debts, totaling at least $713 million. But even as pressure has mounted on the president-elect to deal with the minefield of conflicts created by his holdings, Trump has indicated he will not divest himself of his interests. Instead, in a series of tweets, Trump has indicated he plans to simply stop actively managing his businesses. That’s not enough, say the group of Senate Democrats.

Conflict-of-interest rules currently apply to all top federal officials—except the president and vice president. The carve-out was enshrined during the George H.W. Bush administration, at least in part because the president and vice president can’t recuse themselves from their duties if they run into the same strict conflict-of-interest rules governing other federal employees. Since then, presidents and vice presidents have voluntarily taken steps to avoid even the appearance of conflicts, often by placing their assets in blind trusts. For example, in preparation for his 2008 campaign, Barack Obama put almost his entire personal stock portfolio in Treasury notes and the remainder into widely held mutual funds. Obama also declined to refinance his home mortgage, even though far lower rates are now available, so as not to create even the appearance of a conflict of interest. 

Even Trump has expressed surprise at the lack of conflict-of-interest rules covering the commander in chief. “I’d assumed that you’d have to set up some type of trust or whatever,” he said in a recent interview with the New York Times, “and you don’t.”

Sponsored by Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) and Chris Coons (D-Del.), the proposed legislation would change that, though it would stop short of requiring Trump and future presidents to divest themselves entirely. Instead, the legislation would require that all assets that pose a conflict be sold off and the proceeds be placed in a blind trust. The sale of assets and management of the proceeds would be handled by an independent trustee.

The proposal also would define a presidential violation of the conflict-of-interest law as a “high crime or misdemeanor”—an impeachable offense. Democrats backing the legislation may face an uphill battle because few Republicans have expressed an interest in joining the fight.

The announcement of the legislation seems to come, at least in part, from frustration by Democrats that Trump and many Republicans seem to be brushing off concerns about his unprecedented conflicts. Before the election, when it seemed likely that Hillary Clinton would win, Rep. Jason Chaffetz (R-Utah), who chairs the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, vowed to dig into the personal business dealings of the new president. But he has so far been silent in response to Democratic requests for an investigation into Trump’s conflicts. On Wednesday, Trump was slated to hold a press conference to explain his plan for stepping back from his business interests, but he abruptly canceled this session and said he would elaborate on his plans sometime in January.

“Just this week, the President-elect canceled a scheduled announcement about severing his business ties, taking time instead to meet with Kanye West,” Durbin said in a statement released with the announcement of the legislation. “The American people deserve to know that their President is putting the United States’ interests before his own, his family’s, or that of any foreign government.”

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 can’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 won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—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 can’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 won’t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its future—you.

And we need readers to show up for us big time—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