Democrats Demand Investigation of Whether Trump Is Violating the Emoluments Clause

The president’s business empire is still raising major conflict-of-interest questions.

AP Photo/Evan Vucci

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

One year ago today, on January 11, 2017, Donald Trump held a bewildering press conference, where he roamed from fierce denials of the most licentious details of the so-called Steele dossier to insistence that he had no conflicts of interest (because, he asserted, presidents couldn’t have conflicts). Standing in front of a stack of papers that he said represented signed agreements to separate himself from his business empire (but which were very possibly just stacks of blank paper), Trump trotted out his attorney, Sherri Dillon, to explain the steps he was taking, which included placing his assets in a trust—though not a blind one as ethics experts had advised—and turning day-to-day control of his company over to his sons. Dillon assured the public that she saw no ethical concerns with Trump continuing to have complete ownership of his sprawling business empire, much of which is overseas or caters to high-end foreign visitors to the US, while serving as president. 

At the time, many ethics experts were raising questions about whether Trump’s businesses created a violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which prohibits high office holders from accepting payments from foreign royalty, as was the custom at the time the provision was drafted. But did the clause apply to a modern president such as Trump, whose luxury Washington hotel pitched itself as the perfect setting for embassies to hold soirees? As long as Trump maintains ownership of his businesses, the profits, including those derived from foreign government sources, flow directly into his pocket. A slew of lawsuits have been filed to settle the emoluments question. In late December, a New York judge ruled in one of them, rejecting a civil lawsuit filed by a watchdog group and several New York City restaurants. The decision specifically pointed to Congress as the correct venue to address the matter. 

Yet congressional Republicans, for obvious reasons, have been reluctant to take up the matter, despite continuous pestering from Democrats. On Thursday, Democratic members of the House oversight committee sent a new letter to the committee’s GOP chairman Rep. Trey Gowdy, demanding an investigation into Trump’s compliance with the emoluments clause. (Gowdy’s office did not respond to a request for comment.) Among other things, the letter (which can be read in full here) cites a memo circulated within the Trump Organization explaining how to track money from foreign governments; it is most notable for its focus on not inconveniencing guests. (Trump previously has said he will donate profits from any business with foreign governments to the federal treasury, but he has offered no details on how this process will work.)

The Democrats’ letter asks Gowdy to issue subpoenas to force the Trump Organization to turn over information on how profits from foreign business are calculated and set aside.

 

 

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