At any point, Obama appointee Walter Shaub, head of the Office of Government Ethics, may claim the Trump administration has a conflict of interest if his namesake Trump Hotel in Washington accepts reservations from any business, organization or individual who chooses to stay there. Of course, Schaub was previously silent and never alleged any wrongdoing when those same travelers stayed at the Hyatt Regency Capitol Hill, despite Secretary of Commerce Penny Pritzker’s deep family ties to the Hyatt chain. Apparently standards change depending on the political party.
The hypocritical attacks on negotiated hotel rates, combined with the current toxic political environment with presumptions of bad faith from ideological opponents, encapsulates the quandary that President-elect Trump’s attorneys have faced in trying to avoid business conflicts of interest while at the same time not wiping out a family business built on the Trump name.
Trump announced he would cede all control of the Trump Organization to his two sons, Donald Trump, Jr. and Eric Trump. Trump and his daughter Ivanka will resign from all official and unofficial positions they hold in the Trump Organization and will have no business-related contact with either of Trump’s two sons.
Trump’s attorney Sherri Dillon spoke at a press conference last week and explained that the Trump Organization will not pursue any additional foreign deals during his time in office, and all new domestic deals will be reviewed and vetted by an appointed ethics adviser prior to approval. In addition, the Trump Organization will voluntarily direct all profits made from any foreign governments using any Trump hotel property to the federal government’s treasury. Trump will only receive profit and loss statements for the Trump Organization as a whole (rather than its individual businesses), and will refrain from sharing any nonpublic information with the Trump Organization.
No matter what approach Trump had taken, critics would inevitably complain that his attempts at divestment did not go far enough. In this case, as Dillon explained, it is not feasible to pursue a sale of the company because the largest asset is in fact Trump himself and licensing agreements around his name. Dillon summarized her client’s position that Trump should not be expected to destroy the company he built in a fire sale.
In response to the Trump plan, Shaub has taken it upon himself to loudly and publicly protest. The Office of Government Ethics is supposed to be a nonpartisan government resource that works with government officials to shed conflicts of interest when they enter government. Over the past two months, Shaub has changed that approach and used the agency’s official Twitter account to troll Trump, and sent a public letter to Senate Democrats (while merely cc-ing the actual leadership of the Senate) calling Trump’s plan “meaningless.”
Trump’s plan to minimize his family’s conflicts of interest is a good faith attempt at fitting the square peg of his business into the round hole of traditional public official divestment concepts. There are legitimate discussions to be had regarding whether his approach is the best or if more can be done, but Shaub has disqualified himself from participating in that discussion through his partisan grandstanding.
The Office of Government Ethics used to be a respected resource, but government officials will now have to wonder if their previously confidential consultations will be tweeted about by Shaub. Fortunately, House Oversight Committee Chairman Jason Chaffetz has reached out to Shaub to better understand his approach and plans.
If Shaub is not able to satisfactorily explain why it is appropriate for him to use government resources to troll Trump on Twitter, it will be incumbent on Congress to take stronger action to restore ethics to the Office of Government Ethics.
Charlie Spies (@cspiesdc) is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He previously served as counsel to the Republican National Committee, Mitt Romney’s 2008 campaign and Jeb Bush’s Right to Rise USA super PAC. He currently leads Clark Hill’s national political law practice and is member in charge of the Washington, D.C. office. Thinking of submitting an op-ed to the Washington Examiner? Be sure to read our guidelines on submissions.
