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
This post was promoted to the Main Feed by a Ricochet Editor at the recommendation of Ricochet members. Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Join Ricochet for Free.

There are 184 comments.

Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.
  1. Larry3435 Inactive
    Larry3435
    @Larry3435

    Larry Koler: It depends on the details, of course. An ethical lapse for the left can be as little as stealing a paper clip from the Oval Office.

    An ethical lapse for the left is anything done by a Republican.  So they will scream about real ethical lapses and phony ethical lapses.  But that does not mean that we on the right shouldn’t be able to tell the difference.  Everything the left says is meaningless, but not everything the left says is wrong.  Even a blind squirrel….  etc. etc.

    • #181
  2. Larry Koler Inactive
    Larry Koler
    @LarryKoler

    John Russell:Much of the discussion I have read concerning the possible conflicts of interest between Donald Trump wearing the hat of President of the United States and Donald Trump wearing the hat of entrepreneur assert, glibly, that there is no precedent for a billionaire close to the presidency having to respond to such demands for transparency, blind trusts, or divestiture. I am old enough to remember when President Gerald Ford nominated Nelson Rockefeller for Vice President. Of course the office of the Vice President is not the same as that of the President but it is only a heartbeat (or, maybe, a resignation) away, as Ford himself learned first hand. Why has no one looked to the Rockefeller precedent regarding acceptable levels of transparency, blind trusts, or divestiture for a super rich nominee at the top level of the executive branch?

    Great question. Why didn’t I think of that?

    • #182
  3. Hoyacon Member
    Hoyacon
    @Hoyacon

    Jamie Lockett:I have to say that I thought this would be a relatively uncontroversial issue among conservatives. I’m a little worried now that no matter what happens most conservatives will go to the mat to defend “their guy”.

    Trump isn’t “my guy.”  And I really don’t see how pointing out the obvious flaws in requiring a blind trust is an absolutist, go-to-the-mat position.  It’s like the thread never happened.

     

    • #183
  4. GFHandle Member
    GFHandle
    @GFHandle

    Jamie Lockett: most conservatives will go to the mat to defend “their guy”.

    How do you know the actual motives of “most conservatives”? Maybe the fanaticism you allude to is a factor. Or maybe just the tendency to defend one’s standard bearer against sniping attacks? Whatever. Do you dispute the logic or the motive?

    • #184
Become a member to join the conversation. Or sign in if you're already a member.