Clause of concern
Maryland and the District of Columbia sued President Donald Trump on Monday, and on Wednesday 196 Democrats in Congress agreed to file their own lawsuits against the president. Each claim that Trump has violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which bars government officials from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State” without Congress’ consent. The president still owns Washington’s Trump International Hotel, which has drawn business from foreign officials since Trump was elected. This has resulted, Maryland and the District argue, in unconstitutional payments that harm local facilities that must compete with the president’s hotel. Members of Congress, meanwhile, argue that they have not been consulted, as the Constitution requires.
Since its drafting, the emoluments clause has been a provision of interest primarily to constitutional scholars. It is unclear who can bring an emoluments clause case; Maryland and the District face a high hurdle in persuading federal judges to entertain their suit, as do a group of minority-party lawmakers acting without the consent of the whole legislature.
In the end, the courts may not solve the financial questions raised by Trump’s election. What should he do about the clear conflict-of-interest issues raised by the Trump International Hotel, not to mention the rest of his properties? More broadly, what should the public expect billionaire presidents to do to limit impropriety or the appearance of impropriety?
In most cases, the only reasonable, ethical course is creating a blind trust. Assets should be sold off and transferred into an account run by people with independence from the president. For billionaires whose wealth is mostly in paper assets, this would likely be sufficient to relieve most ethical concerns.
If Trump insists on keeping his business, its operations should be run by caretakers. Trump’s current arrangement calls for no new foreign deals, but he should proscribe new domestic enterprises as well. Finally, there must be far more transparency.
Courts may not make these things happen. But voters should expect no less.