Blumenthal slams Trump over president’s profiting from businesses with foreign governments

By Gary Gately

Sen. Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn.) — a lead plaintiff in one of two federal lawsuits arguing President Trump’s vast worldwide businesses violate a constitutional clause barring presidents from receiving gifts from foreign governments – slammed Trump Tuesday on the eve of his visit to China.

“The president of the United States of America is visiting China, and the state bank of China has offices in the Trump tower [for which the Chinese government pays rent for Trump-owned office space], and there are 40 trademarks granted by the China government to the Trump organization,” Blumenthal told reporters during a conference call Tuesday.

“After these were granted, the president ‘flip-flopped’ on trade in China. The lawsuit has particular meaning this week as President Trump travels to China.”

Blumenthal and Rep. John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.) have joined 194 other Democrats and Republicans in Congress in the lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, arguing Trump’s profits from foreign governments violate the obscure emoluments clause, written into the Constitution by the framers. The clause stipulates that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.”

Challengers assert the profits represent gifts from foreign governments, barred by the emoluments clause.

Blumenthal seized on Trump’s impending visit with Chinese President Xi Jinping, which begins with his arrival Wednesday afternoon.

Trump, visiting China as part of a 12-day trip to the Asia-Pacific, has repeatedly condemned the trade deficit with the Communist nation; it climbed to $347 billion last year. Last week, he called the trade deficit with China “through the roof” and “so big and bad that it’s embarrassing saying what the number is.”

But rather than harsh retaliation like broad tariffs to curb Chinese imports, analysts expect negotiations to focus on better market access and making a dent in the trade deficit.

Trump has also backed off from his hardline and repeated promises to retaliate for what he terms China’s currency manipulation.

China has extended an extraordinarily warm welcome to the U.S. president, an official “state visit-plus,” a high honor, perhaps returning a bit of Trump’s effusive praise for the Chinese president before leaving for the Asia-Pacific trip. “I like him a lot,” Trump said. “I call him a friend. He considers me a friend.”

China represents but one example where critics say Trump’s receiving profits from foreign governments in his far-flung international businesses, from hotel bookings to office and ballroom rentals, poses conflicts of interest that threaten to place his interests– and his companies’ profits — above the interests of the country.

Another federal lawsuit filed by the Washington watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington and several hotel and restaurant owners challenges Trump’s receipt of money from foreign governments.

Challengers argue the emoluments clause is designed to prevent corruption, and the Washington-based Constitutional Accountability Center said in a statement Wednesday that “no one is above the law” and that Trump’s receipt of money from foreign governments clearly violates the emoluments clause.

Harold Koh, dean of Yale Law School, said during the conference call that Trump’s receiving money from foreign governments poses a major conflict of interest that threatens to compromise national security.

“This is a national security case,” Koh said. “The government should act with one voice. Currently, this would allow the executive Branch to act in their private interest. This would undermine U.S. policy. This is about the government’s narrow interpretation.

The government argues in briefs that its narrow interpretation of the clause excludes Trump’s private businesses.

The White House did not immediately respond to requests for comment.

More from

Rule of Law
July 25, 2024

USA: ‘The framers of the constitution envisioned an accountable president, not a king above the law’

CIVICUS
CIVICUS discusses the recent US Supreme Court ruling on presidential immunity and its potential impact...
By: Praveen Fernandes
Access to Justice
July 23, 2024

Bissonnette and the Future of Federal Arbitration

The Regulatory Review
Every year, there are a handful of Supreme Court cases that do not make headlines...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 19, 2024

US Supreme Court is making it harder to sue – even for conservatives

Reuters
July 19 (Reuters) - Over its past two terms, the U.S. Supreme Court has put an end...
By: David H. Gans, Andrew Chung
Rule of Law
July 18, 2024

RELEASE: Sixth Circuit Panel Grapples with Effect of Supreme Court’s Loper Bright Decision on Title X Regulation

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen
Rule of Law
July 17, 2024

Family Planning Fight Poised to Test Scope of Chevron Rollback

Bloomberg Law
Justices made clear prior Chevron-based decisions would stand Interpretations of ambiguous laws no longer given deference...
By: Miriam Becker-Cohen, Mary Anne Pazanowski
Rule of Law
July 15, 2024

Not Above the Law Coalition On Judge Cannon Inappropriately Dismissing Classified Documents Case Against Trump

WASHINGTON — Today, following reports that Judge Aileen Cannon dismissed the classified documents case against...
By: Praveen Fernandes