When President Donald Trump announced the Group of 7 Summit would be held at the Trump National Doral Miami resort, governmental ethics experts and many politicians cried foul over what they saw as a blatant violation of the emoluments clause. As a result, the president decided to pull the summit from the property, but that doesn’t mean Trump’s troubles with the emoluments clause are over.
In a very brief description, the emoluments clause bars the president from using his office for personal gain. There are disagreements between the Trump administration and others, though, on what personal gain can mean: Is paying for a hotel room in a Trump-owned hotel the same as directly paying the president?
Rep. Dina Titus, D-Nev., thinks so. As chairwoman of the Economic Development, Public Buildings and Emergency Management Subcommittee, the Nevada congresswoman is a lead on the House of Representatives investigation into potential violations of the emoluments clause, focusing on Trump’s hotel in Washington, D.C.
“Even in Nevada, the law says you can’t, if you’re an elected official, enter into any kind of contract with the government,” she said.
The situation with Trump is a new one, she said.
“We’ve never had a president who kept his businesses going and [stayed] involved with them while they were in office,” Titus said. “They were either put on a blind trust or they didn’t have businesses to start with, but this is new, unprecedented.”
What exactly is the emoluments clause?
There are two clauses of the Constitution that deal with emoluments on the executive level. The domestic emoluments clause bars the president from receiving benefits from the government or any state government besides what has already been allocated to the presidential position. It includes a provision stating that the president’s salary cannot increase during his or her term. The second clause, the Title of Nobility Clause (also known as the foreign emoluments clause), bars executive-level officials from receiving benefits from foreign states or dignitaries.
The Trump administration has repeatedly downplayed accusations that the president has violated the emoluments clause, and the definition of “emoluments” itself has not escaped the fray. The president’s lawyers have defined the term as meaning “profit arising from office or employ.”
However, a study done by John Mikhail, a professor at the Georgetown University Law Center, argues that this interpretation is flawed. In the study, Mikhail studied English-language dictionaries published from 1604-1806 and common law dictionaries published between 1523-1792.
Mikhail found that every definition of the term relied “on one or more of the elements of the broad definition [that the Department of Justice] rejects in its brief: ‘profit,’ ‘advantage,’ ‘gain,’ or ‘benefit.’ ”
Only 8% of the dictionaries cited contained language supportive of the Justice Department’s definition.
Titus said that because of the drama surrounding special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Trump’s alleged involvement with Russia, as well as the controversy surrounding Trump’s demand for Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden in exchange for previously appropriated funding from Congress, average Americans may be distracted and less aware of the emoluments issue.
“Just the average person on the street is not all that knowledgeable about the details of the Constitution,” she said. “If you say ‘bribe,’ they know just what you’re talking about, but if you say ‘emoluments,’ then that needs a little explanation.”
What violations is Trump accused of?
At the core of Titus’ investigation is the Trump International Hotel, located in the historic Old Post Office Building in Washington, D.C.
Trump did not divest himself from the business.Instead, he placed it in a revocable trust—a decision which has led, Titus said, to businesses and others staying in the hotel to curry favor.
For example, former Maine Gov. Paul LePage racked up a $22,000 bill—paid for through state funds—at the Trump International Hotel during his term as governor.
With regards to the foreign emoluments clause, multiple issues have been brought up, including a party hosted by the Kuwaiti embassy, numerous room rentals by Saudi-funded lobbyists and a celebration of Philippines Independence Day held by the Philippine embassy at Trump’s hotel.
“It’s pretty obvious that they’re staying in his hotel to curry his favor,” Titus said. “And also because he and his family are still making money off of the hotel, you might as well be handing him an envelope of cash.”
Trump’s decision to stage the G-7 Summit was a more blatant step toward violating the clause, Titus said.
“It was an in-your-face [move], and I think that it was so blatant and so bold that that’s why for the first time, you’ve seen Republicans now doing pushback on this emoluments issue,” she said.
Titus said Trump’s claim that the summit would have been held at cost holds little water because the hotel would have benefited from the publicity.
“Whether he did it at cost or not, it would be a real plus for him having all those people stay there at a time where it would have otherwise been empty,” she said.
There are other challenges to the president’s perceived violations of the clause as well. Maryland and Washington, D.C., have filed a lawsuit against Trump, alleging that he violated the foreign emoluments clause.
Long-standing Justice Department guidelines have set precedent that the president cannot be indicted on criminal charges. Titus, though, said this shouldn’t stop courts from investigating.
“That’s just the Justice Department’s opinion. That’s not the standing precedent. That’s something that can be challenged, too,” Titus said.
As for what happens next, Rep. Peter DeFazio, D-Ore., who is head of the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has filed a subpoena to the General Services Administration, which supervises the lease of the building where Trump’s hotel is housed. Titus said she expects this will start a legal showdown.
“If they ignore that [subpoena], then we’ll take it to court, but unfortunately that takes a long time,” she said. “But the thing to remember is if they ignore that, that’s an example of obstruction of justice, and that’s one of the charges that they got [former President Richard] Nixon on.”
According to multiple national media outlets, the Trump Organization is exploring selling the property. Titus said this will have little effect on the investigation.
“I think the pressure’s getting to him and he wants to sell it if he can, but two things: That doesn’t negate the fact that he’s been using it for three years to make money off of, and that’s the violation of the emoluments clause,” she said. “And also, [with regards to] selling it, we’ve got to be sure we look very closely at the terms of the lease and who he sells it to and how he sells it and all that, because it’s still a public building. We’ll have some involvement in that.”
This story appeared in Las Vegas Weekly.