III 

115TH CONGRESS 

1ST SESSION S. CON. RES. 8 

Clarifying any potential misunderstanding as to whether actions taken by 

President Donald J. Trump constitute a violation of the Emoluments 

Clause, and calling on President Trump to divest his interest in, and 

sever his relationship to, the Trump Organization. 

IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES 

MARCH 2, 2017 

Mr. CARDIN (for himself, Mr. LEAHY, Mrs. MCCASKILL, Ms. WARREN, Mr. 

CARPER, Mrs. FEINSTEIN, Mrs. MURRAY, Mr. WYDEN, Mr. DURBIN, Mr. 

REED, Ms. STABENOW, Mr. BROWN, Mr. CASEY, Ms. KLOBUCHAR, Mr. 

WHITEHOUSE, Mr. UDALL, Mr. MERKLEY, Mr. BENNET, Mrs. GILLIBRAND, Mr. FRANKEN, Mr. COONS, Mr. BLUMENTHAL, Ms. BALDWIN, 

Mr. MURPHY, Ms. HIRONO, Mr. HEINRICH, Mr. MARKEY, Mr. BOOKER, 

Mr. PETERS, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. HARRIS, Ms. CORTEZ MASTO, and 

Ms. DUCKWORTH) submitted the following concurrent resolution; which 

was referred to the Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental 

Affairs 

CONCURRENT RESOLUTION 

Clarifying any potential misunderstanding as to whether actions taken by President Donald J. Trump constitute 

a violation of the Emoluments Clause, and calling on 

President Trump to divest his interest in, and sever 

his relationship to, the Trump Organization. 

Whereas article I, section 9, clause 8 of the United States 

Constitution (commonly known as the ‘‘Emoluments 

Clause’’) declares, ‘‘No title of Nobility shall be granted 

by the United States: And no Person holding any Office 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
2 

•SCON 8 IS 

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.’’; 

Whereas, according to the remarks of Governor Edmund 

Randolph at the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the 

Emoluments Clause ‘‘was thought proper, in order to exclude corruption and foreign influence, to prohibit any 

one in office from receiving or holding any emoluments 

from foreign states’’; 

Whereas the issue of foreign corruption greatly concerned the 

Founding Fathers of the United States, such that Alexander Hamilton in Federalist No. 22 wrote, ‘‘In republics, persons elevated from the mass of the community, 

by the suffrages of their fellow-citizens, to stations of 

great pre-eminence and power, may find compensations 

for betraying their trust, which, to any but minds animated and guided by superior virtue, may appear to exceed the proportion of interest they have in the common 

stock, and to overbalance the obligations of duty. Hence 

it is that history furnishes us with so many mortifying 

examples of the prevalency of foreign corruption in republican governments.’’; 

Whereas the President of the United States is the head of 

the executive branch of the Federal Government and is 

expected to have undivided loyalty to the United States, 

and clearly occupies an ‘‘office of profit or trust’’ within 

the meaning of article I, section 9, clause 8 of the Constitution, according to the Office of Legal Counsel of the 

Department of Justice; 

Whereas the Office of Legal Counsel of the Department of 

Justice opined in 2009 that corporations owned or conVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:15 Mar 02, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00002 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SC8.IS SC8

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
3 

•SCON 8 IS 

trolled by a foreign government are presumptively foreign 

states under the Emoluments Clause; 

Whereas President Donald J. Trump has a business network, 

the Trump Organization, that has financial interests 

around the world and negotiates and concludes transactions with foreign states and entities that are extensions of foreign states; 

Whereas the very nature of a ‘‘blind trust’’, as defined by 

former White House Ethics Counsels Richard Painter 

and Norm Eisen in an opinion piece in the Washington 

Post entitled, ‘‘Trump’s ‘blind trust’ is neither blind nor 

trustworthy’’, dated November 15, 2016, and the Congressional Research Service report ‘‘The Use of Blind 

Trusts By Federal Officials’’, is such that the official will 

have no control over, will receive no communications 

about, and will have no knowledge of the identity of the 

specific assets held in the trust, and that the manager of 

the trust is independent of the owner; 

Whereas, on January 11, 2017, President-elect Donald J. 

Trump and his lawyers held a press conference to announce that he would be placing his assets in a trust and 

turning over management of the Trump Organization to 

his two adult sons, Donald Trump, Jr., and Eric Trump, 

and executive Allen Weisselberg; that there will be no 

communication with President Trump and no new overseas business deals; that an ethics advisor will be appointed to the management team to fully vet any new 

proposed domestic deals; and that the Trump Organization will donate any profits from any foreign governments 

that use Trump hotels to the Department of the Treasury; 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
4 

•SCON 8 IS 

Whereas this arrangement is not sufficient because of its 

utter lack of independent accountability and transparency, such that the director of the Office of Government Ethics has stated that ‘‘[t]he plan the [President] 

has announced doesn’t meet the standards that the best 

of his nominees are meeting and that every president in 

the last four decades have met’’; 

Whereas the director of the Office of Government Ethics has 

characterized the promise to limit President Trump’s direct communication about the Trump Organization as 

‘‘wholly inadequate’’ because President Trump would still 

be well-aware of the specific assets held and could receive 

communications about and take actions to affect the 

value of those assets, especially when those running the 

business are his own children, whom Trump will see 

often; 

Whereas the promise that no new overseas business deals will 

be agreed to by the Trump Organization fails to explain 

what constitutes a deal, and whether expansions to existing properties, licensing or permitting fee agreements, or 

loans from foreign banks like Deutsche Bank AG would 

qualify as ‘‘deals’’; 

Whereas the promise that the Trump Organization will donate profits from any foreign governments that use 

Trump hotels does not include Trump golf courses and 

other properties; does not explain whether the promise 

covers foreign government officials who register under 

their own names or third-party vendors hired by foreign 

governments to do business with the Trump Organization; does not explain whether foreign organizations signing tenant agreements with domestic Trump businesses, 

such as the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
5 

•SCON 8 IS 

which is Trump Tower’s biggest tenant, qualifies; does 

not define what constitutes ‘‘profits’’; does not address 

the fact that revenue received by a failing business still 

provides value to that business even if there is no net 

profit; and has no mechanism for the public to verify that 

the promise is being fulfilled; 

Whereas President Trump’s lawyer claimed that ‘‘it would be 

impossible to find an institutional trustee that would be 

competent to run the Trump Organization’’ when there 

are dozens if not hundreds of highly qualified trustees 

who handle complicated business situations like the disposition of the Trump Organization; 

Whereas, at the January 11, 2017, press conference, President-elect Trump’s lawyer implied that the only reason 

people have raised the Emoluments Clause is over ‘‘routine business transactions like paying for hotel rooms’’ 

and claimed that ‘‘[p]aying for a hotel room is not a gift 

or a present, and it has nothing to do with an office. It’s 

not an emolument.’’; 

Whereas a comprehensive study of the Emoluments Clause 

written by Richard Painter, Norman Eisen, and Lawrence Tribe, two of whom are former ethics counsels to 

past Presidents, has concluded that ‘‘since emoluments 

are properly defined as including ‘profit’ from any employment, as well as ‘salary,’ it is clear that even remuneration fairly earned in commerce can qualify’’; 

Whereas numerous legal and constitutional experts, including 

several former White House ethics counsels, have also 

made clear that the arrangement announced on January 

11, 2017, in which the President fails to exit the ownership of his businesses through use of a blind trust or 

equivalent, will leave the President with a personal finanVerDate Sep 11 2014 23:15 Mar 02, 2017 Jkt 069200 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6652 Sfmt 6300 E:\BILLS\SC8.IS SC8

sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
6 

•SCON 8 IS 

cial interest in businesses that collect foreign government 

payments and benefits, which raises both constitutional 

and public interest concerns; 

Whereas Presidents Ronald Reagan, George H.W. Bush, William J. Clinton, and George W. Bush have set the precedent of using true blind trusts, in which their holdings 

were liquidated and placed in new investments unknown 

to them by an independent trustee who managed them 

free of familial bias; 

Whereas the continued intermingling of the business of the 

Trump Organization and the work of government has the 

potential to constitute the foreign corruption so feared by 

the Founding Fathers and to betray the trust of America’s citizens; 

Whereas, on January 20, 2017, President Trump swore an 

oath to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of 

the United States, the rights, privileges and limitations 

of which are defined and guarded by the Federal judiciary of the United States; and 

Whereas Congress has an institutional, constitutional obligation to ensure that the President of the United States 

does not violate the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, Federal law, or fundamental principles of ethics, 

and is discharging the obligations of office based on the 

national interest, not based on personal interest: Now, 

therefore, be it 

1 Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives 

2 concurring), That Congress— 

3 (1) finds the promised actions outlined by 

4 President Donald J. Trump at his January 11, 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS
7 

•SCON 8 IS 

1 2017, press conference wholly inadequate and insuf2 ficient to ensure compliance with the Emoluments 

3 Clause of the United States Constitution; 

4 (2) calls upon President Trump to follow the 

5 precedent established by prior Presidents and con6 vert his assets to simple, conflict-free holdings, adopt 

7 blind trusts managed by an independent trustee with 

8 no relationship to Donald J. Trump or his busi9 nesses, or take other equivalent measures; 

10 (3) calls upon President Trump not to use the 

11 powers or opportunities of his position as President 

12 of the United States for any purpose related to the 

13 Trump Organization; and 

14 (4) regards, in the absence of express affirma15 tive authorization by Congress, dealings that Donald 

16 J. Trump, as President of the United States, may 

17 have through his companies with foreign govern18 ments or entities owned or controlled by foreign gov19 ernments as potential violations of the Emoluments 

20 Clause. 

Æ 


sradovich on DSK3GMQ082PROD with BILLS