Donald Trump made a great deal out of the fact that he’s not a politician. And he's not.
Normally, policy reflects some combination of practicality — what works? — and ideology — what fits my preconceptions? And our usual complaint is that ideology all too often overrules the evidence.
But now we’re going to see a third factor powerfully at work: What policies can officials, very much including the man at the top, personally monetize? And the effect will be disastrous.
Politicians have some concern for their country, their party, their principles—if for no other reason than that failing to display those concerns can lead to poor results on polling day. But for an un-politician who has already declared his ability to commit public murder without losing a vote, there’s no need to be coy: Money is all that counts.
… what’s truly scary is the potential impact of corruption on foreign policy. Again, foreign governments are already trying to buy influence by adding to Mr. Trump’s personal wealth, and he is welcoming their efforts.
The scope of the problem is already evident in Trump’s pre-Inauguration discussions with world leaders. Talk to the president of Argentina? Grab a building permit while you’re at it. Turkey? Tell a dictator that your business partner is in his corner. The UK? Complain about windmills near a golf course. The Philippines? India? If there’s one universal constant, it’s Donald Trump’s conflicts of interest.
Mr. Trump’s companies have business operations in at least 20 countries, with a particular focus on the developing world, including outposts in nations like India, Indonesia and Uruguay, according to a New York Times analysis of his presidential campaign financial disclosures. What’s more, the true extent of Mr. Trump’s global financial entanglements is unclear, since he has refused to release his tax returns and has not made public a list of his lenders.
Trump has an ownership stake in at least 500 companies. The true extent of his connections and conflicts hasn’t even been glimpsed. But there are some connections we are starting to see more clearly not because Trump told us, but because we’re seeing the effects of his election.
Days after Donald Trump’s election victory, a news agency in the former Soviet republic of Georgia reported that a long-stalled plan for a Trump-branded tower in a seaside Georgian resort town was now back on track.
Adding to the confusion, there’s no reason to believe Trump will be even an inch more truthful when talking about his business dealings than he is when screaming at political rallies. Both Trump and the Argentinian president denied the report that their conversation had included a request by the U.S. president-elect to speed along a building permit that had been delayed for months. And yet …
Likewise, the local developer of a Trump Tower planned for Buenos Aires announced last week, three days after Trump spoke with Argentina’s president, that the long-delayed project was moving ahead.
America is in a position where we can expect to learn about our foreign policy not by statements from the White House or movements of U.S. troops, but from the business pages of foreign papers.
Trump has done little to set boundaries between his personal and official business since winning the presidency.
“Little” in this case means “less than nothing.” Far from setting boundaries, Trump has announced that he has no need to even draw a line.
President-elect Donald Trump shrugged off rising concerns Tuesday about the potential conflicts-of-interest between his ongoing participation in the Trump Organization and his future as president, saying the president "can't have a conflict of interest" and that the law is "totally" on his side.
Trump doesn’t mean to make a distinction between the United States and his company. For all intents and purposes, the United States government is Trump Company #501. It could be advisable to check in with Bloomberg or Forbes on a regular basis. You never know when Trump might be announcing a merger—or a sellout.
In case you’re wondering, yes, this is illegal, in fact unconstitutional, a clear violation of the emoluments clause. But who’s going to enforce the Constitution? Republicans in Congress? Don’t be silly.