Profiting From Power: A Violation of the Emoluments Clauses

Twelve score and ten years ago, our forefathers had the wisdom to include in our Constitution two Emolument Clauses:

Foreign Emoluments Clause – Article I, Section 9, Clause 8:

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, 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. 

Domestic Emoluments Clause – Article II, Section 1, Clause 7:

The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased [sic] nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them. 

The words are not ambiguous. These clauses are anti-corruption safeguards. Their purpose is to prevent money from corrupting the people in government.

The Constitution followed from the Declaration of Independence premised on “[t]he history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations,” and “a long train of abuses and usurpations.”  In that spirit, the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause begins, “No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.”

At th Constitutional Convention, Charles Pinckney of South Carolina introduced the language that became the Foreign Emoluments Clause based on “the necessity of preserving foreign Ministers & other officers of the U.S. independent of external influence.”  The Convention approved the Clause unanimously without noted debate. During the ratification debates, Edmund Randolph of Virginia—a key figure at the Convention—explained that the Foreign Emoluments Clause was intended to “prevent corruption.”  (The Emoluments Clauses and the Presidency: Background and Recent Developments | Congress.gov | Library of Congress)

Not only was that notion unanimously endorsed by the Founders, but officials of note also took it seriously.

When the King of France gave Benjamin Franklin an opulent snuff box, Franklin sought (and received) congressional approval to keep the gift to avoid the appearance of corruption or influence.  Id. 

In the 1980’s, aiming to avoid the appearance of corruption, President Ronald Reagan sought the advice of the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel to determine whether his receipt of retirement benefits from the State of California would violate the Domestic Emoluments Clause.  Id. 

That concern – even if just about optics – no longer holds sway.

Trump’s acceptance of a luxury jet from Qatar, along with the use of U.S. taxpayer funds to retrofit it for presidential use, has drawn scrutiny from legal scholars, some of whom argue that the arrangement could violate the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause by involving a valuable benefit from a foreign government without congressional consent. To circumvent this issue, the jet was technically gifted to the Pentagon, although only President Trump will use it, and it will be gifted to the Trump Presidential Library after his term of office.

Most recently, President Trump, Donald J. Trump, Jr., Eric Trump, and the Trump Organization, LLC, filed suit against the Treasury Department and IRS in federal court for $10 billion over the leak of his tax information by an outside contractor of the IRS in 2019 and 2020.  The federal Judge to whom the case was assigned raised questions about whether an actual disagreement exists, writing that a case can only stand if there is “adverseness” between the parties.

Legal questions were raised right from the start since the Constitution’s “case or controversy” clause says federal courts may only hear actual “controversies.”  If the Judge found there was no “case or controversy,” President Trump’s suit would have been dismissed, and he would have recovered nothing.   Faced with this likely denouement of his lawsuit, President Trump preemptively dismissed his case effectively taking it out of the hands of the judge and, soon thereafter, the IRS/DOJ settled, agreeing to create a $1.776 billion fund to compensate those who claim they were targets of government “weaponization.”  Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche also signed an order that permanently bars the IRS from auditing past tax returns of President Donald Trump, his family, and related companies as part of the settlement. (https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/news/doj-settlement-forever-bars-irs-trump-audits-sparks-backlash/)

The Domestic Emoluments Clause says that the President’s compensation shall not be increased.  Black’s Law Dictionary defines an “emolument” as an “advantage, profit, or gain received as a result of one’s employment or one’s holding of office.”

(Emolument, BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY (11th ed. 2019).)  “[T]he term ‘emolument’ in both Clauses extends to any profit, gain, or advantage, of more than de minimis value, received by [the President], directly or indirectly, from foreign, the federal, or domestic governments.”  Blumenthal v. Trump, 373 F. Supp. 3d 191, 207

(D.D.C. 2019).

If this Fund is created as outlined by the DOJ, President Trump will indirectly control $1.776 billions of taxpayer money that can be doled out to his political allies without any congressional or judicial oversight. Such an “advantage” would appear to run afoul of the domestic emoluments clause and fly in the face of the efforts of our nation’s Founders to prevent such actions.

Facing howls of protest about this fund from friends and foes alike, Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche assured Congress, “We’re not moving forward with the fund, period.”  (‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ is dead, acting AG says – POLITICO)

However, in a recent NBC interview, President Trump said, “So me, personally, I think the weaponization fund is a great idea, and so do many other Republicans. You have to get it approved. If they get it approved, that’s great. If they don’t get it approved, I’d be disappointed.”  (Trump continues defense of ‘Anti-Weaponization Fund’ – POLITICO) Federal Judge Leonie Brinkema in the Eastern District of Virginia on June 12, 2026, issued an order indefinitely blocking the proposed “anti-weaponization fund” due to conflicting statements as to whether this fund is fully dead, the refusal of the government to file a written declaration in court that the fund will not be created, and the fact that Acting Attorney General Todd Blanche refused to state under oath that the proposed fund will not proceed.

The Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses exist to ensure that no President may profit from the powers of the office, and preserving those safeguards is essential to maintaining the public’s trust in the rule of law.