Donald Trump and conflicts of interest
Summary: As Donald Trump prepares to take office, many Americans are still concerned that he is not qualified for the position. One major concern the public has with our president elect is the fact that he owns his own company. As people call for Trump to divest from his company, he claims, “the president can’t have a conflict of interest” as there are no laws or precedent on the matter. As he is not subject to scrutiny from the Office of Government Ethics, Trump feels he has no responsibility to completely separate himself from his companies. As he has many overseas business ventures, Trump, if still involved with his own company, will undoubtedly be seen as acting on his own commercial interest. Although many people claim, in his defense, that because nothing like this has ever happened, premature judgment cannot be made, one may be able to find precedent in the administrations of other countries. In Italy, a prime minister by the name of Berlusconi had many parallels with Trump. He was a wealthy businessman who planned to distance himself but not divest in his companies. While looking at Italy under Berlusconi, it can be seen that owning a company and running a country is nearly impossible. Their situations are not exactly the same, however, it can be said that under Trump, similar scandals are bound to happen. As foreign ambassadors have already began to favor Trump owned hotels, Trump’s company may prove to be detrimental to the public’s perception of his integrity throughout his presidency.
Connection: The legality of Trump’s actions are rooted in one’s interpretation of the constitution. If Trump is sued, likely, SCOTUS will have to decide if a president can have a conflict of interest.
Questions:
Should Trump be forced to divest in his company?
Does Trump have any legal obligation to divest in his company (Emoluments Clause)?
Can Trump and Berlusconi be reliably compared?
Trump and Berlusconi can be compared but only in spirit. For starters, as the article highlights, most of Berlusconi's assets were domestic, while Trump's are international. This is an important difference because being biased in foreign policy can be much more dangerous than domestic policy (although both are important). The biggest difference is how Italy has been ruled compared to the US. Italy has had many leaders over its time as a democracy (almost as many rulers as years) and therefore has weak government that is susceptible to corruption (and often is corrupt). This lack of power could allow for Berlusconi to achieve more corruption than Trump ever could. But the other side of the coin is that the US is a much more powerful, both economically and politically. This power could lead to Trump having greater conflicts because more leaders will look to get the favor of the US compared to trying to sway Italy.
ReplyDeleteUnder the Emoluments Clause, Trump should be legally obliged to step back from his business. The clause states that “no person holding any office of profit or trust” shall “accept of any present, emolument, office or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign state” unless Congress consents. In other words, leaders cannot receive compensation for their services. Trump would very likely be influenced by his potential business gains when making policies, both domestic and abroad. Any benefits he and his company earned would be illegal under this clause because he would benefit financially from being able to affect policy that favors his own economic gains.
ReplyDeleteLike the beginning of the article says, the United States has no experience with handling the many conflicts of interest Trump may have. A president who is trying to protect his personal finances as well as lead a country could be very dangerous. Trump should be required to step back from his company, but like Kaeley said, the Emoluments Clause allows for Congressional consent. Right now, Congress is dominated by Republicans, who are more likely to allow Trump to hold office while also maintaining involvement in his business.
DeleteI think that Trump should put control of his company and assets into a blind trust, so that his property will be waiting for him after his time as president. This is the most ideal way forward, as we have already seen how his assets have already raised questions about his true motives, like how he had to sell his shares in a company helping to build the Dakota Access Pipeline after questions were raised about whether his shares would affect his actions on the protesters. If he does not put his assets in a blind trust, it will only continue to cause problems in the future, even if he lets his children control the company, since they spend a lot of time with him and who knows whether they would influence his choices based on how he's doing financially.
ReplyDeleteI don't think that Trump should be forced to divest his company, as nothing explicitly says that he has to. As mentioned before, he is our first president elect to be in such a situation, so it is very hard to make predictions and suggestions on what he should do. Trump and Berlusconi can of course be compared, but only if recognizing their differences as well. However, I don't see a way in which Trump's business or business mindset won't affect and define his way of leading the country.
ReplyDeleteI understand that there is no law against Trump keeping his companies during his presidency, however, should he? These companies represent another allegiance Trump has to stick to during his presidency. As citizens of the United States we elected Trump because he was an outsider to DC. These companies are so common in other Washington officials though
DeleteI see that there is nothing that explicitly states for the president to divest his company. However, I agree with Gray when he says that "these companies represent another allegiance Trump has to stick to during his presidency." Allowing Trump to maintain and oversee his companies would create an even bigger burden and conflict of interest during his presidency.
DeleteI don't believe that Trump should be forced to divest his assets in his company. However, the fact that a real conflict of interest exists must be addressed prior to his taking office. While I do not believe that this issue will be as great as the media has made it out to be, at the very least Trump should place his assets in the truly blind trust. Yes, other people in this thread have brought up the point that even if the money is not under his name, he would still have the power to use the presidency to advance many of his business interests. Still, there is no precedent or requirement for a president to divest their investments. The Emoluments Clause does not apply in Trump's case as Trump, presumably, would not be accepting and "present, emolument, or office" from foreign governments.
ReplyDeleteI agree that Trump should place his assets in a blind trust. I recall watching an interview with him in which he seemed unaware what a blind trust is, insisting that leaving his business in his children's hands would suffice. Obviously, this is not the case and the president should be sure to place assets into an actual blind trust so that he may focus on running the country.
DeleteI agree with Kate and Andrew and believe that Trump should place his assets in a blind trust. I also agree that Trump definitely knows what a blind trust is and think that its the best idea for him to do. Similarly, I agree with Andrew when he says that Trump would not be accepting from foreign governments.
DeleteI certainly would hope that a leader of a country would be willing to divest her assets in order for the greater good of a nation. As seen in Berlusconi's case, his scandals soared along with his growing income levels, leading one to believe that retaining assets as a President may not be the way to go. However, when Mr. Pollicino says, “It’s unbelievable to us in Italy that we’d be comparing Berlusconi to an American president,” he is entirely in the right. The way the American government operates, while a democracy like Italy's, possesses many different facets compared to Berlusconi's country. So perhaps, the comparison between President Berlusconi and President-elect Donald Trump does not have as much backing as might seem at first glance.
ReplyDeleteElecting Donald Trump as president has come with many issues and it is interesting to see how this conflict of interests is the new set of problems to develop with his presidency. I think Trump must divest his assests. He must fully be separated from his business and putting his relatives and children to head his company does not count as separation. There is still a conflict of interest. The potential problems with having his children head his company was brought up when Ivanka Trump (who is said to be the new head of Trump's company) sat in on a meeting between Trump and the prime minister of Japan. Furthermore, as the article mentioned many foreign delegates have been scrambling to stay at Trump's hotels. These types of situations provided countless opportunities for corruption and scandal and Trump must divest his business in order to prevent that from happening.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Electing Donald Trump for president of the United States will set a precedent on how much outside influences and self-interest can affect a President. He certainly has some outside influences as he will not want to harm his own company which could harm his life after the four years he will spend in office. Donald Trump will set a precedent for what it means to be a President and if it is even possible to become a president with that many influences on them.
ReplyDeleteYes, I believe that Trump should be forced to divest in his company. I do not feel that having a president with a multi-billion dollar company would devote the appropriate amount of attention towards, what their primary role is, being president. He says that he will put his company in a "blind trust", but then says that he will be passing his business onto his children, which is completely contradictory. If he is to become our president, I would much rather prefer that he place his attention solely on running our government and addressing the the most pressing international crises.
ReplyDeleteTrump should absolutely be required to divest from his businesses. There has already been influence of his business dealings effecting his decisions on the campaign trail, and now that he is in office, this influence will only grow larger. There is a clear conflict of interest for him if does not divest. His choices of policy would inevitably be effected by what would benefit his businesses more, which is unacceptable for the president.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of the specifications of the Emoluments Clause, Trump should divest in his companies upon assuming office. Otherwise, the potential for a conflict of interest would be plain: the Trump Organization's companies could be given preferential treatment in federal contracting, taxes (possible through legislative tax exemptions proposed by Trump), and other areas. Even with anti-corruption laws in place, Trump would probably find a loophole so as to allow his companies to benefit.
ReplyDeleteRegardless of Trump's situation, any person who holds elected office should be fully committed to openness and transparency. It is likely that enough political pressure will build up for Trump to be forced out of the public sector.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAs much as I don't think Trump shouldn't be keeping his companies due to him most likely not being able to focus all of his time to our government, maybe it will be a good thing if he does decide to keep them. The less attention he pays, the less changes he will make. However, on a more serious note I don't think the companies should be taken away from him, but I would hope that Trump would have the knowledge to know that keeping them is ultimately not a wise decision.
ReplyDelete