Emoluments

The Founders Feared Foreign Cash

An emolument is any gift, payment, office, title, or benefit of value received by a federal official. The Constitution’s Emoluments Clauses prohibit the president and other federal officials from accepting such benefits from foreign governments (Foreign Emoluments Clause) or from state governments or the federal treasury beyond their salary (Domestic Emoluments Clause)—unless Congress consents.

The word comes from Latin emolumentum, meaning “profit” or “gain.” The Founders included these prohibitions because they believed that foreign governments and domestic interests would try to influence American officials through gifts and payments. An official who profits from foreign governments might make policy decisions based on personal financial interest rather than national interest.

Foreign Emoluments Clause (Article I, Section 9, Clause 8):
“No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], 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 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 Foreign Emoluments Clause applies to all federal officials. The Domestic Emoluments Clause applies specifically to the president, ensuring the president receives only their salary—no bonuses, gifts, or extra payments from federal or state governments.

Where Does This Come From?

The prohibition originated in the Articles of Confederation, which stated: “Nor shall any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office or title of any kind whatever from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

The provision came from Dutch practice and addressed a real problem: European monarchs customarily gave expensive gifts to diplomats. Benjamin Franklin received an opulent snuff box from the King of France and had to seek Congress’s approval to keep it, which was granted.

At the Constitutional Convention, delegate Edmund Randolph identified the Foreign Emoluments Clause as essential protection “against the danger of the president receiving emoluments from foreign powers.” Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist No. 22: “One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.”

The Founders designed these clauses as anti-bribery rules. They understood that foreign governments would try to influence American policy through gift-giving and payments. They wanted to ensure the president and other officials couldn’t be bought.

For most of American history, presidents voluntarily complied. When offered gifts by foreign states, they routinely requested Congress’s permission to accept them, and foreign rulers were informed of the constitutional restriction. In 1966, Congress formalized this with the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act, which permits officials to accept gifts of minimal value but generally requires other gifts to be treated as U.S. government property.

Trump’s Business Empire

Donald Trump broke with two centuries of precedent. Unlike every modern president, he refused to divest from his businesses when he took office. He transferred day-to-day control to his sons but retained ownership and continued profiting from them.

This created direct conflicts with the Emoluments Clauses:

Foreign governments at Trump properties

Trump never sought congressional consent for any of these payments, as the Constitution requires.

The Lawsuits That Went Nowhere

Three separate lawsuits challenged Trump’s emoluments violations:

These cases made legal history—in 200+ years, no court had ever litigated the Emoluments Clauses. Lower courts ruled that Trump likely violated the Constitution. Two district judges adopted a broad definition of “emolument” covering any profit, gain, or advantage from foreign or domestic governments—including payments to Trump’s businesses. But the cases collapsed on procedural grounds. Courts ruled that individual members of Congress lacked standing to sue. When cases did survive initial dismissal and move toward discovery—where Trump would have to produce financial records—he appealed to delay them.

In January 2021, five days after Trump left office, the Supreme Court dismissed all pending cases as “moot.” Trump was no longer president, so the violations had ended. The Court vacated all lower court rulings, erasing them from precedent. Result: No definitive judicial interpretation of the Emoluments Clauses exists. Trump never faced legal consequences. The constitutional violations simply ended when he left office.

Trump’s Second Term

Trump’s second term raises even more troubling emoluments questions:

Trump has signaled unprecedented willingness to openly accept foreign gifts, abandoning even the pretense of compliance.

Does It Matter?

The Emoluments Clauses exist to prevent federal officials—especially the president—from being compromised by foreign money. When a president profits from foreign governments, we can never know whether policy decisions serve American interests or the president’s financial interests.

Consider Trump’s foreign policy toward Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia murdered Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi. Trump defended the kingdom. Was this based on foreign policy judgment or the fact that Saudis spent hundreds of thousands of dollars at his properties?

When a president openly profits from office and faces no legal consequences, we lose a fundamental safeguard against corruption. Future presidents learn they can do the same.

When a president violates these clauses openly for four years, leaves office without consequence, then returns for a second term and continues profiting, the constitutional prohibition becomes meaningless. It becomes a suggestion, not a rule. The enforcement problem is real: Courts dismissed the cases on procedural grounds. The constitutional remedy—impeachment—failed because senators prioritized party loyalty over constitutional duty.

Without enforcement, the Emoluments Clauses become historical curiosities rather than binding law. And we return to what the Founders rejected: a system where leaders enrich themselves through their office, where foreign governments buy influence through payments, and where we can never be sure our officials serve us rather than their own wallets.