Melania Trump, if her lawyers are correct, considered making many millions of dollars by turning her fame as first lady into lucrative “broad-based commercial brand.”
In other words, she was going to monetize her proximity to power.
This is the argument put forward by her attorneys in a libel suit against the Daily Mail. During the 2016 campaign, the British tabloid published a story — outlandish, effectively unsourced, and denied by everyone contacted — suggesting Trump had been an escort.
Trump quickly promised to sue for defamation, and now she has. Her lawsuit in New York State court lays out a pretty solid case that the Daily Mail acted outrageously irresponsible in printing the rumors it probably suspected to be false. A lawsuit typically needs to allege not only that has someone acted wrongly, but that the action caused harm. The harm the first lady alleges is eye-catching.
The first lady’s “brand has lost significant value,” the suit alleges, “and major business opportunities that were otherwise available to her have been lost and/or substantially impacted.”
Specifically, the article allegedly harmed her “licensing, marketing and endorsement opportunities,” costing her “multiple millions of dollars.”
The language is a bit unclear, but here’s the missed opportunity, according to Trump’s lawyers, in full:
“Plaintiff had the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, as an extremely famous and well-known person, as well as a former professional model and brand spokesperson, and successful businesswoman, to launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which Plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world. These product categories would have included, among other things, apparel, accessories, shoes, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care, skin care and fragrance.”
The passage — especially the verb tenses — can be confusing, but this paragraph clearly implies Trump hopes or hoped to launch a line of clothes and beauty products, while first lady or while wife of the GOP nominee for president. Further, this alleged business plan didn’t merely coincide with her husband’s presidency, but it seems to have relied in large part on the fame and constant media presence of being married to the president of the United States.
Given the way lawyers work, maybe this business plan never existed. Maybe Trump’s attorneys are using terms like “had … the opportunity,” in a very vague way in order to maximize the supposed harm of the alleged libel. But the White House hasn’t pushed back on this suit or responded to media queries. So the simplest conclusion is that she plans or planned to run this business.
This is almost exactly what people see as the problem with Washington. This lies near the heart of the swamp that voters in Middle America wanted drained.
When a politician can go and spend four, eight, or 20 years in “public service” and emerge wealthier than he or she entered, that reeks. When the well-connected use their proximity to power to enrich themselves, that’s a rigged system. Across the country, Trump voters were furious when I told them that six of America’s seven wealthiest counties are within commuting distance of the U.S. Capitol.
Using one’s fame to sell high heels isn’t as corrupting as using one’s former elected office to sell access, but it still presents conflicts of interest. Lyndon Johnson’s wife ran a radio station which enriched her and Lyndon while he was in office. The opportunities for corruption here were plentiful, from advertisers seeking access to Johnson to regulators granting the station special privileges.
Many of the same conflicts that exist for President Trump and his hotel business would exist for the first lady launching a clothing line.
Does the first lady have the legal right to do this? Yes. There’s no law against profiting from White House fame or a first lady running her own business. But just because something is legal doesn’t mean it’s ethical or wise.
Americans, in general, have never resented someone for being rich. What the regular guy resents is someone getting rich unjustly. Turning the White House into a “unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” to make “multiple millions of dollars,” looks like monetizing public service, and leveraging the power of the presidency for personal profit. That’s not draining the swamp.
Timothy P. Carney, the Washington Examiner’s senior political columnist, can be contacted at [email protected]. His column appears Tuesday and Thursday nights on washingtonexaminer.com.
