Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Why Donald Trump Should Put His Assets in a Blind Trust
Since his election two weeks ago a couple of stories have come to light of what we might call errors of judgment on Trump’s part regarding the relationship between his business assets and his new duties as President. First, there was the presence of his daughter Ivanka at a meeting with Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Ivanka, you will recall, is being placed in charge of Trump’s businesses alongside her brothers Eric and Donald Jr. In that capacity her presence at this meeting was highly inappropriate. There are also reports that Mr. Trump used a congratulatory call with the President of Argentina to push for building permits for an office complex his company is currently constructing. Mr. Trump and Mr. Macri are apparently old friends and colleagues so I’m giving him the benefit of the doubt here, yet the optics aren’t that great. This is especially troublesome because of three words: The Clinton Foundation.
Conservatives and Republicans rightly excoriated the Clintons for the corrupt relationship that the State Department enjoyed with The Clinton Foundation during Mrs. Clinton’s tenure at Foggy Bottom. Donald Trump himself, rightly, made a big deal of this during the campaign. He needs to remove himself from the appearance of corruption so that his administration isn’t hamstrung by constant accusations of corruption from a hostile media.
Furthermore, as the Cato Institute points out, these small lapses in judgment by Mr. Trump become much more legally serious once he becomes President Trump:
In the text, the Emoluments Clause prohibits any Person holding “any Office of Profit or Trust” under the Constitution from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” Immediately, it is clear that the text limits the clause to gifts from foreign governments and the officials.
The original public meaning of the clause also confirms this interpretation. Foreign kings and princes once gave lavish presents to American officials, for example, a diamond-studded snuff box given to Benjamin Franklin (then ambassador to France) by Louis XVI. The Framers were concerned that these gifts would corrupt our officials, and so they prohibited them.
The next relevant consideration is whether, if Trump’s businesses receive a “gift” from a foreign government, Trump himself may be violating the Emoluments Clause. There is certainly an argument for this, since he benefits from the gift, even if only by increasing the value of his brand and stock holdings.
Finally, what sort of things would be a “gift” from a foreign state? According to one report, Trump has already asked Mauricio Macri, the Argentine president, whether he would help with permitting issues that are holding up the construction of a major office building in Buenos Aires.
If such a deal was made, would the permit be a “gift” from a foreign state? Very likely. Valuable gifts from members of foreign governments need not come in the form of diamond-studded snuff boxes, they can certainly be building permits worth several millions of dollars.
Given how much Trump values his business empire and reputation the temptation to utilize his public position, even innocently, to affect this private empire will be immense. He should remove that temptation.
Furthermore, Mr. Trump has shown that he values the counsel of those close to him and above all that of his children. He should not deprive himself of the advice of a gifted woman like Ivanka or close confidants like Eric and Donald Jr. Their positions at the head of the Trump Empire would require that they be excluded from his Presidential inner circle. Mr. Trump deserves the counselors he wants to help him achieve the goals he has laid out.
Mr. Trump should put his assets in a blind trust for the duration of his administration. For the good of his businesses, for the good of the country and for the good of himself.
Published in General
It may or may not be the right thing to do. That’s not the point. The point is that a blind trust is a practical impossibility. The business (which, I might add, is almost uniquely tied to the Trump name) would have to be sold off lock, stock and barrel to someone who has no pre-existing relationship with Trump.
And this would have to be completed before January 20th.
Good luck with that.
And it still wouldn’t matter because unless the business was shut down, political opponents would still be second guessing every decision Trump makes for it’s possible impact on the business (which is where Haliburton comes into it – Cheney had no ties to the company anymore, and it still came up for the entire 8 years he was in office).
I highly suspect that if we were discussing a Democrat people would feel differently. What happened to all the calls for law and order?
Back in July, I said that if Trump did a good job, I would be glad. And then I asked, if Trump does questionable things, would the people who supported him hold him accountable?
The answer is apparently not.
Yes but what questionable thing has Trump done?
Thus far he has failed to liquidate or separate himself from a billion dollar family real estate business in under 20 days, while he is not yet President.
I am not sure what should be done, I think something is appropriate. My point is, it is too soon to be stating Trump has done something questionable in this matter.
He has stated numerous times, including directly to the NY Times yesterday, that he has no intention of separating himself from his business interests.
Please see my comment #61 as to the practicalities of the matter.
I would prefer (and think it’s in the long term better for the country) to tolerate a small amount of petty corruption to the alternative of making it effectively impossible for a non-politician to be able to run for and hold high political office.
That’s a qualitative difference from the Clinton’s cashing in on their political connections to enrich themselves via the Clinton foundation.
What happens if a foreign tenant wishes to rent in his domestic properties? Like that Chinese bank that he used to talk about or whatever.
The only way to totally avoid a conflict is to wind the business up. He needs to be separate from it, but it depends on his involvement and ownership. It’s not like he can pull a Dick Cheney and say “I don’t work for the Trump Organization anymore.”
That’s perhaps true, but the law does not require that Trump create a blind trust. We are in completely uncharted territory here given Trump’s background. As a matter of pragmatism, it seems incumbent on Trump to do something to avoid the appearance of conflicts of interest and to be vigilant about policy decisions that affect his business interests. I would, however, dispute that only a draconian blind trust achieves these ends.
My guess is, that this will matter a great deal to people here, and to the Media. No matter what Trump does it will be “wrong” to some vocal group of people. I do not think an full Blind Trust is the answer because of the sort of organization Trump has. Sometimes, there are ethical gray areas, were there is not an easy answer. Being trained as a therapist, and teaching on ethics, especially dual relationships, I know how tricky this sort of thing can be.
I suspect that the noise over this will be gone by January 20th. I do not think that the people who supported Trump will be that interested in the details of appearances. After all, half the country does not appear to care about the real and clear corruption of the Clintons. I do not see why it would be different in the other direction. What matters, at the end of the day, is not what the NYT, the Democrats or the rest of us wonkish types think; what will matter is what the majority of voters think. Based on past behavior, they just won’t care about stuff like this. We can jump up and down and say “they are crazy not to care”, but how is that different from anything else?
I figure that, like with Obama, the majority of voters will give Trump a chance. That is what they tend to do.
There is a strong argument that the Constitution might require him to divest himself of all conflicts of interest under the emolument clause.
Could you please explain that? I mean, Washington did not put his Plantation into a Trust did he? Did Jefferson?
Trump has business assets in foreign nations that could be given favors that would amount to gifts under the emolument clause.
Is there a better source for this first conversation than Susan Simpson? She’s kind of famous for bending facts to fit narratives she wants to tell (e.g. that Adnan Syed is innocent).
That’ll teach him to run for office and succeed! Kneecap his business empire because he might act like a Clinton? The Clintons never created anything except wealth for themselves via chicanery. Trump has actually created businesses and thousands of jobs, and has left physical landmarks of his efforts.
If your primary business is self enrichment or political gamesmanship, devoid of actual wealth creation, then we should be wary of such people being given political power. Case: Clintons.
If your primary business is building and creating wealth manifested by physical results, then relax, because government power can only debase such industry. Which government agency is the reside of zoning expertise, financial management, architectural excellence, and so on?
So, not a great idea to degrade Trump’s business empire, a lot of which is represented by real estate. What would be the value in such an unusual ploy? Punish him for being successful? Show him who’s really the boss? Warn other successful private citizens to avoid public service? Revenge or some other emotional reward so loved by the left?
Don’t think that this post isn’t appreciated by advocates of Sun Tzu.
Here’s a sober take by Rivkin and Casey which addresses many of the points made by commentators (and the OP).
I am not ready to limit the presidency to financiers, whose wealth is liquid and abstract.
Macri.
Please fix this. Such errors should not appear in the Main Feed.
The source of the original conversation is a very well respected Argentinian journalist. Susan Simpson just connected the reported conversation date to the date of the announcement – nothing dispositive, but its rather convenient.
Maintain levels of ethical government which Americans deserve.
There is no way that the business will do well without Donald or his kids running it.
There is no way that a “blind trust” is possible, given that the assets are not blind.
The only reasonable solution is for Donald to sell it, and be the President. He can buy things back on the other end. Since his primary business is “branding” anyway, this is not as ridiculous as it might sound.
I see the chances of Donald following this advice as something below zero. So expect 4 years of accusations and media-frenzy, with the American people treating them just like they treated Clinton’s scandals: enemies will care, friends will ignore.
“maintain”. That’s cute.
Yes, and there’s an equally strong, if not stronger, argument that it doesn’t.
Note the clause is restricted to state-originated “emoluments,” and says nothing about divestiture or interacting with the private sector. Is there a case to be made that, in some instances, there is little difference between a state and “private” businesses within that state? Probably, but that’s a case-by-case distinction that IMO does not warrant an all encompassing blind trust. I’m not, again, arguing that he should do nothing, and would hope that we would continue to scrutinize his dealings. However, as someone who favors encouraging businessmen to enter politics, I think we should tread lighter than full divestiture.
This is a good piece that certainly does address some of my concerns. However, I think it underestimates the potential for the President to abuse his office for personal gain – there is already evidence he is doing this and it’s something Republicans rightly made an issue of during the election.
We’re not talking about Trump compared to Clinton. We’re talking about what Trump needs to do in the future to avoid ending up like Clinton.
I suspect many will soon get what they “deserve” hard and fast. Ethical government that can’t trust those selected to act morally is an impossible construct. I guess we should just leave the matter to the “experts”, like we have for 60 years. Another not so great idea.
Given that Trump is a builder there are thousands of interactions between his businesses and the governments of foreign nations that affect the value of those assets.
Well, I guess we may as well begin the impeachment process right away, as there is no method for Trump to be honest.
The clause demands it does not happen. Transparency may be the best approach, instead of total divestment. They have to not take any gifts or favors. Demand people use open bidding, etc. I do not think there will be a totally pure answer.
I wonder, if you were in Trump’s position and were asked to liquidate all your assets, would you still become president? Would you allow your family to take a multi-billion dollar loss just to be president?
And, if the next rich person to desire the presidency for good reasons sees that requirement, do we not create an incentive for only career politicians to become president.
Also, there is no way to require his family to leave business altogether. How can you argue that all his children should do nothing except hide in their homes for the next 4 years? After all, some of you may have been saying how inappropriate it would be for Trump’s family to work for Trump in his administration right.
So if his family can’t hold political positions nor business positions, what would they do?
Finally, I am unconvinced by the emolument clause. As long as Trump himself is not the one receiving payment, I don’t think that law would apply. Otherwise, Trump would have to divest from any company that did business overseas. That would mean that Trump would be unable to own any stock of any company that did anything overseas, in other words, the entire stock market. This idea that Trump would have to liquidate everything is ridiculous for reasons others have mentioned.
There is no way to both be fair to Trump and remove any possible corruption.
If Trump spent his every waking hour seeking to enrich himself rather than resetting relations with Russia, intervening in the Middle East and fundamentally transforming America and its place in the world I would count it a win for the Republic. Such is the low bar set by our recent professional politicians.
Then there is Micky Kaus’s point that the biggest asset of Trump is his name, and only a successful presidency can maintain or increase its value.