When North Korean leader Kim Jong-un and President Donald Trump meet for a second summit in Vietnam from February 27 to 28, keep an eye on whether the two discuss developing hotels on North Korea’s beaches. This topic came up the last time they met, raising the eyebrows of ethics watchdogs worried that Trump is using his position to enrich himself unconstitutionally under the foreign emoluments clause.
The courts certainly have their hands full with the Trump presidency. In both CREW v. Trump and D.C. v. Trump, plaintiffs have argued that Trump is violating the Constitution’s foreign and domestic emoluments clauses by taking in prohibited monies from foreign kings and domestic states. Under the U.S. Constitution, domestic emoluments are monies from the federal government or the fifty states that give a salary boost to the president. These are not allowed. The President is also not allowed to keep foreign emoluments, or in other words money from foreign governments, without the consent of Congress. The President maintains that he is allowed to accept both types of emoluments if they flow to him through his business. What we don’t know yet is how these cases will resolve this issue.
Under normal circumstances, who stays in which hotel room would not raise a constitutional issue — but that changes when the hotelier is the president of United States. For example, after Trump became President, lobbyists representing the Saudi government paid for several hotel blocks at the Trump International Hotel in Washington — booking 500 nights for at least $270,000, according to the Washington Post. This is potentially problematic because U.S. presidents are prohibited from keeping foreign emoluments without the consent of Congress. Spoiler alert: Congress has not consented to Trump keeping any foreign emoluments. In fact, 200 members of Congress are suing him over that fact in a third emoluments lawsuit called Blumenthal v. Trump, which alleges that Trump has conflicts of interest in least 25 different countries.
Meanwhile, on the domestic front, a Maine delegation that included then-Governor Paul LePage paid for 40 hotel rooms in Trump’s D.C. hotel for $22,000, according to the Portland Press Herald. The problem is that those rooms were paid for on the taxpayers’ dime, potentially violating the domestic emoluments clause which says that states are not allowed to augment the president’s base salary.
As I have written before, the CREW case is going nowhere fast, as the district court judge ruled that none of the plaintiffs had standing to sue. The plaintiffs appealed that ruling to the Second Circuit, and a three-judge panel heard their appeal last October but has not yet ruled.
Meanwhile, in D.C. v. Trump, the district judge found that both the State of Maryland and the District of Columbia had standing to sue the president for the potential violation of both emoluments clauses. The case was poised to go into the discovery phase and the plaintiffs had issued a number of subpoenas. But the Department of Justice lawyers representing Trump asked the district judge for permission to file an interlocutory appeal — an appeal before the case is finished at the trial level — which could delay the resolution of the case. The trial judge refused, but the lawyers at DOJ threw a Hail Mary pass, asking the Fourth Circuit for a writ of mandamus to direct the trial judge to allow the interlocutory appeal. The Fourth Circuit will hear oral arguments on March 19; meanwhile discovery is on hold.
It’s possible that both circuit courts will agree with the president and dismiss both cases. It is also possible that one circuit court will allow one of the emoluments cases to go forward while the other halts the companion case. That scenario would create a circuit split, which would propel both cases towards the Supreme Court. Or it is possible that the president will lose across the board and face discovery from both sets of plaintiffs in ongoing suits.
Regardless of outcome, clarity on the emoluments issue is needed not just for this administration, but potentially for future ones: Americans should know if they need to be concerned about voting for someone who potentially could put his or her own business interests ahead of the national interest. If Howard Schultz or Jeff Bezos or Michael Bloomberg runs for president next, Americans should know whether they’re voting again for someone who would run into an emoluments problem on day one.
We’re not backing down in the face of Trump’s threats.
As Donald Trump is inaugurated a second time, independent media organizations are faced with urgent mandates: Tell the truth more loudly than ever before. Do that work even as our standard modes of distribution (such as social media platforms) are being manipulated and curtailed by forces of fascist repression and ruthless capitalism. Do that work even as journalism and journalists face targeted attacks, including from the government itself. And do that work in community, never forgetting that we’re not shouting into a faceless void – we’re reaching out to real people amid a life-threatening political climate.
Our task is formidable, and it requires us to ground ourselves in our principles, remind ourselves of our utility, dig in and commit.
As a dizzying number of corporate news organizations – either through need or greed – rush to implement new ways to further monetize their content, and others acquiesce to Trump’s wishes, now is a time for movement media-makers to double down on community-first models.
At Truthout, we are reaffirming our commitments on this front: We won’t run ads or have a paywall because we believe that everyone should have access to information, and that access should exist without barriers and free of distractions from craven corporate interests. We recognize the implications for democracy when information-seekers click a link only to find the article trapped behind a paywall or buried on a page with dozens of invasive ads. The laws of capitalism dictate an unending increase in monetization, and much of the media simply follows those laws. Truthout and many of our peers are dedicating ourselves to following other paths – a commitment which feels vital in a moment when corporations are evermore overtly embedded in government.
Over 80 percent of Truthout‘s funding comes from small individual donations from our community of readers, and the remaining 20 percent comes from a handful of social justice-oriented foundations. Over a third of our total budget is supported by recurring monthly donors, many of whom give because they want to help us keep Truthout barrier-free for everyone.
You can help by giving today. Whether you can make a small monthly donation or a larger gift, Truthout only works with your support.