Introduction
Since Donald Trump took office, a number of people have questioned whether he has violated the U.S. emolument clause, including attorneys general and the former president Obama. Because they think what he is doing raises ethical and legal issues, some of the worried people have now chosen to sue him for this. The president is allegedly the actual owner of his firms and has been getting funding from foreign governments through his private corporations, which raised these concerns. According to the U.S Emolument clause, individuals holding offices of trust or profit under them should not accept gifts, emolument, office, or title of any kind from a king, prince or foreign nation without the consent of the Congress. Based Trump’s connection with the businesses he owned before winning the presidential position, it is right to state that he is in violation of the U.S Emolument clause.
George's Argument
George argues that Trump does not violate this clause because he announced to have put his businesses under the management of his sons (102). However, Howard states that although he claimed to have moved his investment interests into a trust managed by his adult sons, he still holds the actual ownership of most of his companies, meaning he even makes profits from them (126).
Howard's Perspective
According to Howard, it is illegal for a president or any other person holding an office of trust to receive money from foreign governments through his/her private businesses (145). Over the past months, since he took office, Trump has been allowing foreign states such as Turkey, Georgia, Kuwait, Saudi Arabia, among others to book rooms or hold events at his hotels. Allowing these governments to make payments in his private businesses means he has been violating a section of the emolument clause which states that a person holding an office of trust should not receive emolument without the consent of the Congress.
Counterarguments and Conclusion
According to Howard, Trump’s failure to transfer ownership and allowing his businesses to receive money from foreign government raises both legal and ethical concerns (132). However, George states there are neither legal nor ethical issues in this case because the president announced to have moved his business interests into trusts management by of his sons to avoid conflict of interests (110). He also argues that selling or moving his businesses into blind trusts would be difficult and his opponents are using this issues to gain political benefits. Based on the fact that his predecessors such as Bill Clinton, George Bush and among others moved their business into blind trusts, Trump would have also done so to avoid violation of the nobility clause as explained in Article I, section 9 of the US constitution.
Conclusion
Based on the fact that the Trump maintains actual ownership and receives payments from foreign governments through his private businesses, he violates the US emolument clause. This clause states that president should not receive additional income besides his salary and therefore Trump’s decision to earn revenue from the money paid to his private businesses by foreign governments is illegal. This can be proved by various people in the past few months coming forward to question Trump’s understanding of this clause. Some of these people comprise of the former president Barack Obama and two Attorneys general.
Work Cited
George. Michael. In Trump We Trust: E Pluribus Awesome! The Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies, Vol. 41, No. 4, 2016, PP. 98-123
Howard. Doughty. No Is Not Enough: Resisting Trump’s Shock Politics and Winning the World We Need. The Innovation Journal, Vol. 22, No. 2, 2017, PP. 125-156.
