Since President Trump took office, there's been a lot of talk about a clause in the Constitution most Americans had never heard of before, the emoluments Clause. Now the State of Maryland and Washington d c. Are suing Trump, alleging he violated the Foreign and domestic emoluments clauses of the Constitution.
Here's District of Columbia Attorney General Carl Rassin Racine. Never in the history of this country have we had a president with these kinds of extensive business entanglements, or president who refused to adequately distanced themselves from their holdings. But the Justice Department has argued the Foreign Emoluments Clause doesn't apply to Trump's fair market commercial transactions. I've been talking
to Jed Sugarman, a professor at Fordham Law School. Jed start by describing the Foreign Emoluments Clause in simple, easy to understand terms. Sure, I mean, I can just read. Each one is a sentence. So the Foreign Emoluments Clause says, no person holding any office of profit or trust under them shall with that without the consent of Congress, except any present a molument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any King, prince, or foreign state. So there's the
word amolument and of any kind whatever, um. And then the domestic amoluments clause, and that's the even even most important one here in these cases. Um, this is about the president. The president shall not receive any amolument from the United States or from any of them. So that's federal or state. So the question always is what's an a molument. It's not a word we ever use now in the twenty one century, but they used it a
lot in the eighteenth century. And the work that I've been doing with other historians is to understand what that word meant. We found that it is a was used very broadly for all kinds of business benefits, not just for salaries for an office. Um. The Trump defenders want to argue, and it's historically inaccurate that this word was meant narrowly. Um. It is clear from all of the sources at the time of the founding that it was generally used for all kinds of benefits and private transactions.
So well. Presidents are on subject to ethics laws that apply to other federal office holders. Most lawyers agree that the foreign emoluments clause does apply to presidents now tell us. What the case is, what we know he has an extensive financial network. What are the state of Maryland and Washington d C alleging, Well, it's it's a couple of allegations, um. And that's that's the problem is that when Trump is using his businesses, it's a direct way for foreign entities
like Saudi Arabia. We've seen lots of evidence of how the Saudis have you have paid about three hundred thousand dollars to through the d C hotel um. And so the that's one problem. And then the domestic emoluments problem is all kinds of states are paying millions of dollars per UH per year to Trump through his organ zations. So the concern for for Maryland and for Washington d C is that not only are their citizens being disadvantaged
by Trump using his office to attract business. That creates a competitive disadvantage on fair disadvantage for their citizens, but it also weakens the states. If you have we know that California's pension UH in New York's pension, Texas is using its pension to send millions of dollars to Trump. That disadvantages the states with regard to each other, and you have foreign countries who are getting an advantage over not only citizens but also states in being able to
exercise control and influence. So the other key point here is that Supreme Court precedent establishes that the states have a special role, that they've called it a special solicitude um in our federal system, and that they need to have the power to get into court to be able to protect themselves. And so under that those precedents, one is called Massachusetts first as e p A that establishes that these states can get in a court and defend themselves.
So jed this is the second lawsuit over basically the same issue. Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington already filed. So what has the Justice Department's response been. So they just filed their response UM their brief to um support their motion to dismiss on Friday UM. And it's the
the argument they make is very weak. UM. The problem is uh that there they the Department of Justice is arguing that Trump can accept any payment at all the because the corporate that the Trump corporations are separate from Trump the person, and so the corporations any money the corporations take in is llegally separate from the president UM, and that that's a misinterpretation of established law. UM. The
monuments are about a benefit. And the way that President Trump has set up his his organization is that he this trust is not a blind trust. He can take profits anytime he wants. He can disband the trust or of Okay at any time, UM, and he's the sole beneficiary. So it's clear that any payment that comes from California, or that comes from Saudi Arabia or from other countries is a benefit directly to President Trump. And that's what
the emolument's clause was meant to address. In about twenty seconds. What's the solution if if they win this case, what happens? Well, I think that I think the easiest solution for Trump is actually quite easy. If he just UM put the company into a blind trust or completely handed it over and separated from himself, that would be simple. It's it's actually quite amazing that he is enduring this unforced error
UM in this controversy. It just shows I think how committed he is uh to being able to use these corporations for his personal benefit. We will see if that ever happens. Thank you, Jed Sugarman, Professor at Fordham Law School,