It’s a disgrace that Americans must worry about Trump’s interests

If Donald Trump thinks there’s nothing wrong with exploiting the presidency for his personal profit, he should read the Constitution. That’s the argument plaintiffs made in a Manhattan federal court last week, in the first-ever lawsuit to accuse a president of violating the emoluments clauses — once-obscure constitutional provisions that the nation’s founders adopted to prevent corruption of public officials.

One clause prohibits officials from accepting “any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever” from foreign governments unless Congress approves; another bars presidents from getting payments from federal or state governments other than their salaries.

The emoluments clauses are based on a simple, sound idea — that the nation’s security and well-being are threatened when those entrusted with acting in the public interest use their office for private gain. Until Jan. 20, there was no need to invoke them. Presidents have been generally transparent about their financial holdings, placing assets in blind trusts and releasing their tax returns.

Trump — whose global empire of hotels, real estate, golf courses and other businesses is awash in foreign money — has refused to take those steps. Instead, he has performed in a sort of ethics theater, stepping away from the day-to-day management of the Trump Organization even as he retains his ownership in it. Since the Republican-led Congress appears to have no interest in holding Trump to account, the federal courts may be the only option.

In defending Trump last week against claims by some plaintiffs that it was impossible to compete for business against the most powerful man in the world, a Justice Department lawyer played down his pull. “The president is a market participant,” said Brett Shumate, a deputy assistant attorney general. “He is not controlling access to the market.” But his participation in the market is part of the problem: Americans shouldn’t have

The emoluments clauses are based on a simple, sound idea — that the nation’s security and well-being are threatened when those entrusted with acting in the public interest use their office for private gain. Until Jan. 20, there was no need to invoke them.

to worry that their leader’s primary allegiance is to his own financial fortunes.

Trump gives little reason to feel reassured. In 2015, he said of Saudi Arabia: “I get along great with all of them. They buy apartments from me.” He added: “They spend $40 million, $50 million. Am I supposed to dislike them?” (On his first overseas trip after taking office, to Saudi Arabia, Trump lavished praise on the kingdom’s rulers, dismissing concerns about their repressive policies.)

Meanwhile, foreign officials are racing to curry favor with our businessman in chief. Shortly after Trump was elected, one diplomat told the Washington Post, “Why wouldn’t I stay at his hotel, blocks from the White House, so I can tell the new president, ‘I love your new hotel!’”

The case being heard last week was filed days after Trump took office by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, or CREW, a bipartisan watchdog group. CREW’S complaint highlights the conflicts between Trump’s duties as president and his “vast, complicated and secret” web of business interests.

These include Trump Tower in New York, where foreign-government-held entities like the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China hold leases that will come up for renewal during Trump’s term, and the Trump International Hotel in Washington, where foreign diplomats pay top dollar to sleep, eat and do business with the United States. (Elected federal officials, including the president, are prohibited from holding the lease to the hotel, but that’s another story.)

Since the emoluments suit was filed, plaintiffs who complained of unfair competition in the hospitality industry have joined in. Meanwhile, two separate federal suits have also charged Trump with violating the emoluments clauses — one by nearly 200 Democratic members of Congress and the other by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District of Columbia.

A central question for the courts is the meaning of “emoluments.” Does the term cover only those benefits given in exchange for an official’s “personal services,” as the White House contends? Or does it apply to “anything of value” an official receives, as the plaintiffs argue? At last week’s hearing, Judge George Daniels of U.S. District Court appeared sympathetic to a broader reading but was skeptical that the plaintiffs have standing to bring the lawsuit, because they had not shown concrete ways that Trump’s actions had directly harmed them.

Even if the case is thrown out on those grounds, Trump is still a walking emoluments-clause violation. And he still refuses to release his tax returns and other financial records, preventing the public from seeing the full extent of his business entanglements, debts and interests.

In this light it’s hard to see how the American people can ever be confident that Trump, who has spent a lifetime as a money-obsessed deal-maker, is acting in the nation’s best interest, and not his own.