Trump brand in conflict with the US presidency

Donald Trump isn’t the first wealthy person to run for the Oval Office. But, if elected, unique conflicts of interest could arise due to his way of doing business, writes Timothy L O’Brien

Trump brand in conflict with the US presidency

If Donald Trump, the presumptive Republican nominee for president, wins the general election in November, he would still be allowed to oversee operations and collect income from the more than 500 businesses he’s listed in a personal financial disclosure form filed with the Federal Election Commission.

Some of these operations appear to be substantial (such as 401 North Wabash Venture, which Trump used to develop a hotel and condominium project in Chicago; Trump National Doral, one of his Florida golf courses; and a handful of entities related to the skyscraper he owns at 40, Wall Street, in New York).

Some go back to Trump’s earliest days in real estate when he worked for his father multimillionaire, Fred, and involve partnerships set up with his siblings.

Some of Trump’s businesses appear to be in countries that don’t necessarily sync up with the candidate’s foreign-policy message.

There’s DT Marks Dubai, DT Dubai Golf II Manager, THC Jeddah Hotel Manager, and THC Qatar Hotel Manager, which are all in the Muslim world. And then there’s THC China Development, THC China Technical Services, and THC Shenzhen Hotel Manager, all in a country Trump has whipped with gusto.

Regardless of their size, location, or profitability, there is nothing to stop a President Trump from exercising control over these enterprises from the White House.

US conflict-of-interest laws dating from the Civil War era prevent unelected officials who work in the executive branch from collecting income from outside businesses and in government decisions that might affect their private financial interests.

But US Congress originally exempted itself, the president, the vice-president, and federal judges from such strictures, on the theory that a broad conflict-of- interest law might dissuade merchants, farmers, and other businessmen from joining and leading government.

Presidents were exempt because the office’s powers were so expansive as to make any conflict law meaningless. Every executive action would carry with it the possibility of conflict. It was best, therefore, to trust the person in charge and not create strictures that could prevent a president from acting at full constitutional capacity.

US Congress consolidated a variety of conflict-of-interest guidelines in 1962 and then updated them in the US Ethics in Government Act in 1978. Pushed through Congress after the Watergate scandal, the law, among other things, imposed some outside income restrictions on members of Congress, and spelled out a new series of restrictions that might make elected and unelected officials unable to perform their jobs impartially. For the first time, it also required presidents to publicly disclose assets and business interests.

Because US presidents remain exempt from conflict-of-interest statutes, the practice of placing their assets in a blind trust controlled by a fully independent manager is essentially ceremonial — a tradition but not a requirement. Nevertheless, it’s been a tradition recent presidents have adhered to.

Lyndon B Johnson and his wife put their Texas radio holdings in a blind trust. Jimmy Carter, Ronald Reagan, both of the Bushes, and Bill Clinton did the same with their assets. Barack Obama, who mostly owns mutual funds and Treasury notes, has opted to skip a blind trust since, his argument goes, there’s little he can do to influence the performance of his relatively basic portfolio.

Ronald Reagan
Ronald Reagan

But Trump would represent something entirely new in the White House.

Trump would arrive comfortably wealthy, as others have before him (a number of the founding fathers were land-rich, while Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin D Roosevelt and John F Kennedy were scions of wealthy families; on an inflation-adjusted basis, George Washington and JFK may have been the wealthiest presidents ever).

Unlike those men, however, Trump has been a hard-driving businessman his entire adult life.

In addition to operations in China and the Middle East, Trump’s campaign disclosures show companies that appear to run licensing, hotel, golf, and other businesses in Azerbaijan, Brazil, Egypt, Georgia, India, Indonesia, Ireland, Israel, Philippines, South Africa, and Turkey. It would be hard to conceive of any major global trade deal that wouldn’t raise a red flag, given Trump’s international presence.

Other geopolitical and national security policies could also intersect with Trump’s overseas enterprises. His domestic real estate businesses would be affected by shifts in interest rates and tax policies, and he owes at least several hundred million dollars to banks that his administration would regulate.

Here’s another area that’s ripe for confusion and potential conflicts of interest: Trump has said that three of his children — Donald Jr, Ivanka, and Eric — would run the Trump Organization if he’s in the Oval Office.

But that trio — aged 38, 34, and 32 respectively — hardly represents a disinterested managerial corps.

Trump presents an added complication. He has said for years that he believes that a large part of his fortune is tied up in the value of his brand, which he has never been shy about promoting. Recall that it was only a few months ago that Trump turned a news conference following three of his primary and caucus victories into an infomercial in which he touted the virtues of Trump Water, Trump Wine, and Trump Steaks (Trump’s steak business is actually defunct and he was displaying another company’s product). So it’s worth pondering whether Trump might turn the White House into his own version of Wal-Mart.

“We are at an entirely different order of concern than we’ve had in the past,” says Noah Bookbinder, executive director of nonpartisan watchdog, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. “You could see where Trump’s actions as president could have a significant impact on that brand.”

To allay such concerns, Trump could take a page from the late Nelson Rockefeller, who was an heir to a fortune and industrial empire far more substantial and consequential than anything Trump has ever overseen. In order to get confirmed as Gerald Ford’s vice president in the wake of Richard Nixon’s 1974 resignation, Rockefeller sat through congressional hearings in which strangers scoured his family’s business dealings and finances.

“My sole purpose is to serve my country,” Rockefeller told his Senate inquisitors at the time. “I would not be influenced by so-called interests.”

Can we expect the same from Trump? Well, in more than four decades in business, Trump has prided himself on stretching, not following, rules.

“The Outlaw archetype loves to break the rules,” Trump once advised aspiring entrepreneurs in Midas Touch, his 2011 book. “The motto of the Outlaw is: ‘Rules are meant to be broken.’ ”

This article first appeared in Bloomberg View.

More in this section

The Business Hub

News and analysis on business, money and jobs from Munster and beyond by our expert team of business writers.

Sign up
Puzzles logo

Puzzles hub

Visit our brain gym where you will find simple and cryptic crosswords, sudoku puzzles and much more. Updated at midnight every day.

News Wrap

A lunchtime summary of content highlights on the Irish Examiner website. Delivered at 1pm each day.

Sign up

Our Covid-free newsletter brings together some of the best bits from, as chosen by our editor, direct to your inbox every Monday.

Sign up