Abstract

Because of the foreign business dealings of President Donald Trump and his family, interpreting the Foreign Emoluments Clause has become a nearly fulltime job for political pundits, with stories about the clause appearing in every conceivable media outlet. The clause provides that “no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States] shall, without the Consent of Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.” If the president is benefitting economically from business dealings with foreign governments (or organizations that might be treated as agencies of foreign governments) and the benefits constitute emoluments, he is arguably violating the clause. This article considers several interpretive issues, including whether the clause applies at all to the president and what the meaning of “emolument” is. The article supports an expansive interpretation of the clause, to ensure, as much as possible, that American officials, including the president, don’t have divided loyalties—loyalty to the foreign state as well as to the United States.

Keywords

Foreign Emoluments Clause, Presidential Compensation Clause, Ineligibility Clause, Office of Profit or Trust [under the United States], emolument, foreign State

Publication Date

2018

Document Type

Article

Publication Information

10 Elon Law Review 73 (2018)

Share

COinS Erik M. Jensen Faculty Bio