Dems Sue Trump Over Hotel Secrecy

An obscure 1928 law could be Democrats’ best hope for breaking secrecy over Trump hotel profits.

(AP Photo/John Minchillo)

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

The Trump administration is violating federal law by refusing provide Congress with key information about the president’s Washington, DC, hotel, a group of Democratic lawmakers alleged in a lawsuit filed Thursday.

Since Inauguration Day, the administration has been stonewalling congressional watchdogs, refusing to turn over details about the operations of the Trump International Hotel, which is located in the Old Post Office buildingā€”an iconic DC landmark owned by the federal government and leased to the Trump Organization. Under terms of the lease, the hotel’s management has to provide financial data to the General Services Administration, the federal agency that acts as landlord for the hotel.

Critics have accused Trump of using his position as president to drum up business for the hotelā€”and of using it as a conduit through which foreign governments can line his pockets to curry favor. Democrats on the House oversight committee have been asking the GSA for records detailing the profitability of the hotel; payments to the hotel from foreign governments; and information about the GSA’s decision that it is acceptable for Donald Trump to continue to lease the hotel, even as he serves as president. A clause in the lease that Trump signed with the GSA, prior to running for president, prohibits any federal officials from benefitting from the deal. Shortly after Trump took office, the GSA announced it did not believe Trump’s presidency conflicted with the lease, but the agency has withheld details on how it reached that conclusion. 

While congressional committees have subpoena power to force federal agencies to disclose documents and records, the subpoenas can’t be issued without the support of a majority of committee members. In practice, that means Republicansā€”who control Congress and the oversight committeeā€”have been able to prevent Democrats from subpoenaing the hotel data.

But committee Democrats, led by Rep. Elijah Cummings (Md.), believe they’ve found another way to get the recordsā€”an obscure 1928 law known as the “Seven Member” statute. The law, which was designed to force transparency by government agencies even when partisan politics gets in the way, says that if any seven members of the oversight committee request documents from a federal agency, those documents must be turned over. The law applies to no other congressional committees, but since its passage during the Calvin Coolidge administration, it has been upheld by courts and used repeatedly.

In Thursday’s lawsuit, 17 committee Democrats say they have repeatedly requested the Trump hotel information citing the “Seven Member” statute and that the GSA has rebuffed them. By not releasing more information on the hotel’s operation, Cummings said in a statement on Thursday, the GSA is violating the law and stoking the perception of corruption. 

“This hotel is not just a building with Donald Trump”s name on it,” Cummings said. ā€œIt is a glaring symbol of the Trump Administrationā€™s lack of accountability and a daily reminder of the refusal by Republicans in Congress to do their job. This may be standard operating procedure in foreign countriesā€”but not here. Not in America.ā€

A slew of other lawsuits have targeted the Trump administration over the president’s refusal to divest from his sprawling business empire before taking office. The most focus has been on lawsuits citing the Emoluments Clauseā€”a provision in the Constitution that bars federal officeholders from taking payments from foreign governments. Those suits are working their way through the judicial system, but it’s unclear whether courts will decide that the plaintiffs have legal standing to sue and whether the Emoluments Clause, which was written to prevent European princes from bribing bureaucrats, applies in the modern age.

The reason congressional Democrats think Thursday’s suit may have a better chance of succeeding is that the “Seven Member” rule has worked before. In fact, as recently as January 3, just 17 days before Trump took office, the GSA provided the Oversight Committee with information on the hotel’s profitability and specifically cited the “Seven Member” law.

“Under the previous administration, this exact same agencyā€”GSAā€”explicitly recognized our authority under this exact same statuteā€”the Seven Member statuteā€”and produced documents on this exact same issueā€”the Trump Hotel. But all that stopped on January 20,ā€ Cummings said. ā€œThere is one thing, and one thing only, that has changed in this caseā€”President Trump is now sitting in the Oval Office.ā€

A spokesman for the GSA declined to comment, saying the agency does not discuss ongoing litigation. 

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