Trump insists that, as president, he can have no "conflict of interest." He means that legally, but he states it as though it applies ethically as well. Unfortunately for him, it may not apply contractually.
Donald Trump's business is leasing the Post Office Pavilion in Washington as the Trump International Hotel (their new motto: "Be sure to stay here if you want the new President to pay any attention to you"). Now, in the least irksome of Trump worlds, this would simply be one of those weird "well, yeah, it's a conflict of interest ethically, but legally nobody can do anything about it" kind of a thing.
But apparently, the GSA (which administers the property) and the city include some special boilerplate (but important) language in their lease agreements — an agreement that the Trump organization signed:
'The Post Office Lease differs from many of Mr. Trump’s other business arrangements. That’s because, in writing the contract, the federal and D.C. governments determined, in advance, that elected officials could play no role in this lease arrangement. The contract language is clear: “No … elected official of the Government of the United States … shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom…”
_The language could not be any more specific or clear. Donald Trump will breach the contract on Jan. 20, when, while continuing to benefit from the lease, he will become an “elected official of the Government of the United States.”
[…] The clause is consistent with longstanding prohibition on entering into contracts with federal employees. The prohibition extends to any “business concern or other organization owned or substantially owned or controlled by one or more Government employees.” This “policy is intended to avoid any conflict of interest that might arise between the employees’ interests and their Government duties, and to avoid the appearance of favoritism or preferential treatment by the Government toward its employees.”'_
The fundamental problem here is a classic conflict of interest. In essence, Donald Trump is both lessor (through the Trump Old Post Office LLC, he has a 60-year, $118M lease) and landlord (as the executive head of the US Government, which owns the property). How the GSA handles the property directly benefits Trump. What Trump asks for as a lessor he's also ultimately responsible for okaying as the executive management over the GSA.
The challenge here is … who's going to do anything about it? The head of the GSA, which would normally be the organization to act, is appointed by the President. Congress might prod the GSA to act according to its own policies and contract document — but will it? The City of DC might act here, too — but Congress controls their budget and could, if they desired, remove any funding from any such prosecution. Does anyone else have any standing to get a contract (which will now be, in a sense, overseen on both sides by the same guy) enforced?
There are words for governments where the leader can ignore the rules that everyone else follows, and doesn't even have to worry about the ones that do technically apply to him. or where the head of the state owns state property that profits him and his family. Let's see if those words apply come 20 January.
GSA’s Trump Hotel Lease Debacle
The existing agreement presents unprecedented—and intolerable—conflicts of interest.
