It’s been old news since the election, but the man currently in the Oval Office broke with precedent and never released his tax returns. While the media circus around the lack of documents about President Trump’s finances has largely died down, those still eager for the numbers might finally get them as the result of a new corruption lawsuit.
Love or hate the president, it would be a good for the public to have that information.
The public deserves to know if the man at the head of the nation is beholden to anyone else. That seems especially relevant after Trump essentially bowed down to Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki. And despite Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s defense of Trump’s conduct, it sure seemed like he might have had more reasons than just looking for better relations with Russia for his deferential actions.
Even setting that performance aside, Americans also have a number of other reasons to be rightly interested in the president’s finances. Who the president owes money to and how much he owes are serious matters when that could translate into influence over the president. Likewise, uncovering some of the details of the foreign income documented in foreign tax credits would potentially reveal the magnitude of Trump’s business abroad and his ties to foreign governments.
All of these discussions could be laid to rest, and with it the constant hum from the Left that the president has something to hide, if the president shared those returns. But he hasn’t, and doesn’t seem likely to unless he is forced to do so.
On Wednesday, a federal judge ruled that he would not block a lawsuit against the president for violating the emoluments clause. That clause, in the first article of the Constitution, states, “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.”
In the judge’s ruling, the key term is emolument. The plaintiffs, the attorneys general of both Maryland and the District of Columbia, argue that emoluments are “any profit, gain, or advantage.” This interpretation would include payments made by foreign governments to the Trump Organization, such as stays at the Trump International Hotel in Washington. Those payments are key, despite the trust set up by the president that supposedly separates him from his business empire, since that money still goes back to Trump and would thus be in violation of the Constitution. U.S. District Judge Peter Messitte found this argument persuasive.
Messitte found that, specifically, the plaintiffs plausibly alleged that president’s profiting from his hotel and direct benefit from the patronization of foreign governments has meant that Trump “has been receiving or is potentially able to receive ‘emoluments’ … in violation of the Constitution.”
That ruling paved the way for the lawsuit to progress. That could mean that if the court allows the case to proceed to discovery, then Trump’s tax returns could be scrutinized as lawyers examine Trump’s business dealings and the payments that he has received.
This would be a win for the public who deserve to know what influence might be leveraged over their president. While it is unlikely that the tax documents will reveal everything, they would provide a window into at least a slice of the president’s finances.
Lastly, for supporters of the president who claim that Trump’s donation to the U.S. Treasury of reportedly about $151,000 offsets profits from foreign governments, as if it clears Trump’s name, it doesn’t. Legally speaking, such a donation doesn’t matter and isn’t a defense for his alleged violations of the emoluments clause. Moreover, it certainly won’t help the president continue to hide his tax returns.
