Last updated 2 months ago. Our resources are updated regularly but please keep in mind that links, programs, policies, and contact information do change.
A $500 million investment in President Donald Trump’s cryptocurrency company by a United Arab Emirates royal landed four days before Trump’s second inauguration. Several months later, the Trump administration approved exports of 500,000 advanced AI chips annually to the UAE. The previous administration had limited such exports through export controls designed to prevent advanced AI chips from being smuggled to China, citing national security concerns about technology transfer. The UAE royal who made the investment, Sheikh Tahnoon bin Zayed Al Nahyan, also serves as his country’s national security adviser.
The transaction directed $187 million to Trump family entities. The decision that followed gave the same foreign official access to technology his government had been seeking for years.
“This clearly appears to violate the Foreign Emoluments Clause—and, more importantly, looks like a bribe,” said Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis and former ethics lawyer for the District of Columbia government.
The Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits federal officials from accepting “any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever” from foreign governments without congressional consent. Foreign officials can’t give money or gifts to U.S. leaders without Congress approving it. Presidents are explicitly covered. The clause exists specifically to prevent foreign governments from buying influence over American leaders.
Yet nobody can enforce it while Trump remains in office. The rules that would punish any other federal official for profiting through their public service simply don’t function when the official is the president.
The Laws Apply. The Enforcement Doesn’t.
The Emoluments Clauses are among the oldest anti-corruption rules in American government. The Foreign Emoluments Clause appears in Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution. The Domestic Emoluments Clause, which prevents states from supplementing the president’s salary, appears in Article II, Section 1.
The Justice Department’s legal office says the law clearly forbids “receiving any money or benefit from a foreign government.” Commercial transactions count.
When a foreign government official invests $500 million in a company that pays the president’s family $187 million, and the president then approves a major change that official has been seeking, the constitutional prohibition seems clear enough.
Presidents are exempt from the main criminal conflict of interest law that applies to everyone else in the executive branch. That law, a federal law that makes it a crime for government workers to participate in official matters where they have a financial interest, carries criminal penalties. Congress specifically exempted the president and vice president from this law when it was enacted.
The reasoning made a certain kind of sense at the time. Presidential decisions affect so many interests that requiring stepping aside from every decision where he had a financial interest would make governing impossible. A president who owns stock in General Motors can’t recuse himself from decisions about the auto industry. A president who owns real estate can’t recuse himself from tax decisions or zoning regulations or infrastructure spending.
Congress decided the solution was to exempt the president from the criminal law but expect him to follow its principles voluntarily. The government’s ethics office has said “the President should act as though” the conflict of interest law applied to him.
For decades, that worked well enough. Presidents from both parties voluntarily placed their business holdings in trusts run by someone else who manages the money without telling the president what’s in it. Jimmy Carter put his peanut farm in a blind trust. George W. Bush sold his stake in the Texas Rangers before taking office. Barack Obama’s portfolio consisted entirely of Treasury bills and college savings accounts.
Trump refused. During his first term, he placed his businesses in a trust controlled by his sons—people he talks to regularly, managing assets he knows he owns. Walter Shaub Jr., who ran the ethics office at the time, said the arrangement was “not even close” to a blind trust. “His own attorney said today that he can’t ‘un-know’ that he owns Trump Tower.” Shaub urged divestment. Trump ignored him. Nothing happened.
Congressional Oversight
Congress has the most direct authority to hold a president accountable for ethics violations. Congress could pass laws making conflict of interest rules apply to presidents. The criminal law could be amended to remove the presidential exemption. New enforcement mechanisms could be created—require the government’s ethics office to investigate presidential conflicts and report findings publicly, create an independent watchdog to investigate White House ethics violations, give regular people the ability to sue over violations.
Legal experts have documented several reform proposals that would close the enforcement gap. Legislation has been introduced. It goes nowhere.
Congressional oversight of a president depends on which party controls Congress. The president’s party has no incentive to investigate its own leader. The opposition party can demand testimony and launch investigations, but without majority support, those efforts produce headlines, not consequences.
Senator Elizabeth Warren called for testimony from the officials involved in the UAE chip deal. She characterized the arrangement as “corruption, plain and simple” and asked whether national security had been compromised for private gain. Her demand made news. It didn’t produce a hearing.
Senate Democrats sent letters to Commerce and State Department officials arguing that the chip deals “present an immediate threat to U.S. national security.” Letters create a record for historians. They don’t stop decisions.
Impeachment is Congress’s most powerful option. The Constitution allows removal for “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” A direct trade—money in exchange for favorable action—seems to fit the definition of bribery. But impeachment is political, not legal. Conviction requires a two-thirds vote—a huge majority that rarely happens. That means significant defections from the president’s own party. Trump was impeached twice during his first term. The Senate acquitted him both times.
The Courts Can’t Help Either
Multiple groups sued Trump for accepting money from foreign governments during his first term. A government watchdog group filed suit. So did members of Congress. So did Maryland and the District of Columbia.
The cases revealed a problem: proving who was actually harmed. Before a court can hear a case, someone must prove they were actually harmed. Who exactly is injured when a president accepts payments from foreign governments? Competitors who lost business to Trump properties argued they suffered competitive harm. Some courts accepted the idea that competitors who lost business could sue. Maryland and D.C. argued they competed with Trump properties for convention business and government contracts.
The cases proceeded. Then Trump’s first term ended. The Supreme Court dismissed the cases because Trump left office. Once Trump left office, there was nothing a court could order him to do. Without a way to fix the problem, the cases couldn’t continue. Four years of litigation produced no ruling that would apply to future cases.
The same problem will recur if new cases are filed over the UAE deal. Courts will ask whether the people suing were actually harmed. They’ll ask whether the case will become pointless when Trump’s term ends. Most cases will fail these tests.
A recent Supreme Court decision gives presidents immunity from prosecution, creating another barrier. The Court said presidents can’t be prosecuted for official actions. It likely covers talking to government agencies about decisions—exactly the conduct at issue in the chip export approval.
Criminal Prosecution
Federal law makes it illegal for government officials to accept bribes. If Sheikh Tahnoon gave money to influence the deal and Trump accepted it, both committed bribery.
But who would prosecute? The Justice Department works for the president. The Attorney General works for the president. A president could order the Justice Department to investigate himself, but that would be obviously corrupt. The Justice Department won’t prosecute a president from its own party. After the recent Supreme Court decision, it’s now much harder to prosecute a president. The immunity covers enough to make prosecution impossible while he’s president.
The National Security Question
The administration says the chip exports are necessary for national security. David Sacks, who advises the White House on AI and cryptocurrency, argues that not selling chips to the Middle East pushes them toward Chinese technology. Better to ensure the UAE uses American chips than to let China gain influence, the argument goes.
The Biden administration refused to approve large AI chip sales to the UAE because of G42, a company owned by the UAE government. G42 worked closely with Huawei and other Chinese technology companies. U.S. intelligence agencies believe G42 gave flight software to Huawei, which China then used to improve its military missiles.
G42 says it cut off its connections to China. Intelligence officials don’t believe that. The House Committee on China wants investigations. Senate Democrats warned that without protections, companies will move their data to whoever pays most.
If Trump had no financial stake, his national security arguments would be easier to trust. But his family received $187 million from a UAE official before approving what he wanted. Skepticism isn’t about politics. It’s about basic fairness.
No government watchdog will investigate whether the money affected his decision. No ethics office will check whether he had a conflict of interest. No court will force him to explain the timing and his reasons. The decision stands because only voters and Congress can hold a president accountable—and Congress isn’t asking questions that will produce answers.
How We Got Here
The enforcement gap didn’t appear suddenly. It’s existed for decades. What changed is that previous presidents followed ethics rules even though they didn’t have to.
They understood something Trump ignores: people need to believe their government is working for them, not for itself. When people think leaders are stealing, democracy itself breaks down. Even the appearance of corruption damages trust in government.
So presidents put their businesses in trusts they couldn’t control. They sold businesses that created conflicts. They followed ethics rules even though they didn’t have to—they knew that presidential power requires public trust.
Trump broke that tradition by refusing to sell his businesses during his first term. He’s made it worse with cryptocurrency deals that hide where money comes from. What would have ended a presidency before is now treated as normal business.
What Would Enforcement Require?
Congress needs to pass new laws. Congress could change the conflict of interest law to apply to presidents. Congress could define what counts as a foreign gift and how to punish violations. The ethics office could become independent and able to investigate and prosecute violations. Regular people could be allowed to sue over foreign gifts to presidents.
The Constitution allows presidents to accept foreign gifts if Congress approves. Congress could approve the deal but require transparency and conditions. Or it could block the deal and make the law enforceable.
But Congress won’t act unless the politics change. That requires either one party to control Congress and the presidency, or something so obviously wrong both parties agree it’s a problem. The UAE deal hasn’t produced either condition.
The System Remains Broken
Presidents are supposed to follow ethics laws, but there’s no way to punish them. The rules about foreign gifts apply, but courts can’t enforce them. The conflict of interest law doesn’t even apply to presidents. Congressional oversight only works if the party in power wants it. Criminal prosecution is blocked by court rulings and the Justice Department won’t do it.
For ordinary government employees, the rules work. Career employees face ethics rules enforced by government watchdogs and lawyers. They can be fired, prosecuted, or disciplined for violations. Cabinet secretaries have to follow the same conflict of interest rules. They must reveal their financial interests and can be investigated. Presidents don’t have to.
The president alone has rules that don’t actually apply. Previous presidents followed the rules even though they didn’t have to. Trump has ignored the rules repeatedly.
Federal ethics laws apply to presidents, but they can’t be enforced. The system is broken.
Our articles make government information more accessible. Please consult a qualified professional for financial, legal, or health advice specific to your circumstances.