Hubbry Logo
Foreign Emoluments ClauseForeign Emoluments ClauseMain
Open search
Foreign Emoluments Clause
Community hub
Foreign Emoluments Clause
logo
7 pages, 0 posts
0 subscribers
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Be the first to start a discussion here.
Foreign Emoluments Clause
Foreign Emoluments Clause
Foreign Emoluments Clause
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia

The Foreign Emoluments Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution that prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility, and restricts federal officials from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states and monarchies without the consent of the United States Congress.[1]

Also known as the Titles of Nobility Clause, it was designed to shield the U.S. federal officeholders against so-called "corrupting foreign influences". The clause is reinforced by the corresponding prohibition on state titles of nobility in Article I, Section 10, and more generally by the Republican Guarantee Clause in Article IV, Section 4.[2]

As the Foreign Emoluments Clause has rarely been subject to substantive judicial analysis or interpretation,[3] its exact meaning and scope remain debated; the consensus among legal scholars is that the prohibition applies broadly to all federal officeholders—whether appointed or elected, up to and including the president—and encompasses any kind of profit, benefit, advantage, or services.[4]

Text

[edit]

No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office 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.[5]

Background

[edit]

It was routine diplomatic practice in Europe for foreign emissaries or diplomats to receive gifts from their host government at the end of their service.[6][7] In 1651, the Dutch Republic became the first state to forbid foreign ministers from taking "any presents, directly or indirectly, in any manner or way whatever", owing to concerns that such gifts would foster corruption.[8] Dutch diplomat Abraham de Wicquefort criticized the prohibition as being contrary to international legal norms and potentially damaging to foreign relations: "The custom of making a present . . . is so well established that it is of as great an extent as the law of nations itself" and added that the refusal to accept such gifts "condemn[s] the sentiments of all the other kings and potentates of the universe."[6]

The founders of the United States likewise debated how to balance concerns about the corrupting influence of foreign gifts with the desire to conform to established diplomatic protocol, as refusing such gifts could be construed as offensive to host countries.[9] The first governing framework of the U.S., the Articles of Confederation, ratified in 1781, largely adopted the Dutch rule by providing that any person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, or any of them shall not accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.[10] Pursuant to the Articles, Benjamin Franklin, who had received an opulent snuff box from the King of France, sought approval from the Congress of the Confederation to keep the gift, which was granted.[11]

History

[edit]

The Framers' intentions for this clause were twofold: to prevent a society of nobility from being established in the United States, and to protect the republican forms of government from being influenced by other governments. In Federalist No. 22, Alexander Hamilton stated, "One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption." Therefore, to counter this "foreign corruption" the delegates at the Constitutional Convention worded the clause in such a way as to act as a catch-all for any attempts by foreign governments to influence state or municipal policies through gifts or titles.[12]

The Foreign Emoluments Clause is constitutionally unique in other respects. First, it is a "negative" clause—a restriction prohibiting the passage of legislation for a particular purpose. Such restrictions are unusual in that the Constitution has been historically interpreted to reflect specific (i.e., "positive") sources of power, relinquished by the states in their otherwise sovereign capacities.[13] Moreover, it is a negative clause without a positive converse. A common example of this is how the Commerce Clause represents the positive converse to the restrictions imposed by the Dormant (or "Negative") Commerce Clause. However, neither an express nor implied positive grant of authority exists as a balance against the restrictions imposed by the clause. For this reason, the clause was cited by Anti-Federalists who supported the adoption of a Bill of Rights. Richard Henry Lee warned that such distinctions were inherently dangerous under accepted principles of statutory construction, which would inevitably "give many general undefined powers to congress"[14] if left unchecked.

Why then by a negative clause, restrain congress from doing what it would have no power to do? This clause, then, must have no meaning, or imply, that were it omitted, congress would have the power in question, either upon the principle that some general words in the constitution may be so construed as to give it, or on the principle that congress possesses the powers not expressly reserved. But this clause was in the confederation, and is said to be introduced into the constitution from very great caution. Even a cautionary provision implies a doubt, at least, that it is necessary; and if so in this case, clearly it is also alike necessary in all similar ones.[15]

Lee argued that the true purpose of the clause was merely to protect popular tradition: "The fact appears to be, that the people in forming the confederation, and the convention ... acted naturally; they did not leave the point to be settled by general principles and logical inferences; but they settle the point in a few words, and all who read them at once understand them."[14] Subsequently, the Bill of Rights was promulgated to allay the fears of Anti-Federalists by safeguarding against the expansion of federal power beyond such limited purpose(s).

Foreign emoluments

[edit]

The prohibition against officers receiving a present or emolument is essentially an antibribery rule to prevent influence by a foreign power.[16] At the Virginia Ratifying Convention, Edmund Randolph, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, identified the Clause as a key "provision against the danger ... of the president receiving emoluments from foreign powers."[17]

The Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel has opined that

[t]he language of the Emoluments Clause is both sweeping and unqualified. See 49 Comp. Gen. 819, 821 (1970) (the "drafters [of the Clause] intended the prohibition to have the broadest possible scope and applicability"). It prohibits those holding offices of profit or trust under the United States from accepting "any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever" from "any ... foreign State" unless Congress consents. U.S. Const, art. I, § 9, cl. 8 (emphasis added). ... The decision whether to permit exceptions that qualify the Clause's absolute prohibition or that temper any harshness it may cause is textually committed to Congress, which may give consent to the acceptance of offices or emoluments otherwise barred by the Clause.[18]

The word "emolument" has a broad meaning. At the time of the Founding, it meant "profit", "benefit", or "advantage" of any kind.[19] Because of the "sweeping and unqualified" nature of the constitutional prohibition, and in light of the more sophisticated understanding of conflicts of interest that developed after the Richard Nixon presidency, most modern presidents have chosen to eliminate any risk of conflict of interest that may arise by choosing to vest their assets into a blind trust.[16]

As the Office of Legal Counsel has advised, the Constitution is violated when the holder of an "Office of Profit or Trust", like the President,[20] receives money from a partnership or similar entity in which he has a stake, and the amount he receives is "a function of the amount paid to the [entity] by the foreign government."[18] This is because such a setup would allow the entity to "in effect be a conduit for that government", and so the government official would be exposed to possible "undue influence and corruption by [the] foreign government."[18] The Department of Defense has expressly held that "this same rationale applies to distributions from limited liability corporations."[21]

Presidential

[edit]

Traditional treatment

[edit]

Foreign states often present the President of the United States with gifts. While President, George Washington received a painting of, and key to, the Bastille from the Marquis de Lafayette, as "a tribute Which I owe as A Son to My Adoptive father."[22] After leaving office, Washington also took home to Mount Vernon a painting of Louis XIV that he had received as a gift from a French diplomat who had been his aide during the American war of independence.[23] However, nothing is known about Washington's motivations, or whether he considered the emoluments clause to apply to either gift.[24]

Post-Washington Presidents have traditionally sought permission from Congress to keep gifts. Absent permission, the President will deposit the object with the Department of State. For example, Andrew Jackson sought permission from Congress to keep a gold medal presented by Simón Bolívar; Congress refused to grant consent, and so Jackson deposited the medal with the Department of State.[25] Martin Van Buren and John Tyler received gifts from the Imam of Muscat, for which they received congressional authorization either to transfer them to the United States Government or to auction them with proceeds vesting to the United States Treasury.[16]

Trump administration

[edit]
See also: Corruption in the United States § Donald Trump
The January 2024 report released by the Democratic members of the House Oversight Committee detailing over $7.8 million in payments made by foreign governments to Donald Trump during his presidency

American politician and associate professor of law at Fordham University Zephyr Teachout has argued that the extensive business and real estate dealings of President Donald Trump, especially with respect to government agencies in other countries, may fall within the clause's scope,[16] but Irish law lecturer Seth Barrett Tillman, of Maynooth University in Ireland, has written that the restriction may not apply to the president, based upon his reading of possible exceptions made during George Washington's administration. Tillman also wrote that "In order to ensure against ethical conflicts, both real and perceived, Trump should place his interests in those holdings beyond his personal control, i.e., into an independently managed blind trust. Such a move would be wise and consistent with America's best political traditions and practices."[26][27]

After China provisionally granted 38 "Trump" trademarks in March 2017, Democratic senators protested Trump's acceptance of the trademarks without congressional approval.[28] In December 2018, there were reports of Saudi Arabia indirectly funneling funds to Donald Trump through Trump businesses, such as his hotels, that may be in breach of the Emoluments Clause.[29]

The group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, including former White House lawyers Norm Eisen and Richard Painter, filed a lawsuit against Trump alleging violations of the clause,[28] including the acceptance of the Chinese trademarks.[30] One of these lawsuits, Blumenthal v. Trump, was dismissed on standing grounds by the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.[31] Two other lawsuits, CREW v. Trump and D.C. and Maryland v. Trump, were dismissed as moot on January 25, 2021, by the Supreme Court vacating lower court decisions that went against Trump, because he was no longer in office. The court's decision effectively ended all litigation against Trump on the emoluments issue.[32]

In January 2024, Democratic members of the U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Accountability released their White House for Sale: How Princes, Prime Ministers, and Premiers Paid Off President Trump report detailing over $7.8 million in payments from foreign governments to Trump-owned businesses. After Republicans took control of the House in the 2022 midterm elections, the committee stopped requesting financial records from Trump's accounting firm, Mazars, leading the report to assume that additional payments had occurred.[33][34]

In May 2025, the Trump administration expressed its intention to accept P4-HBJ, a Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet requested from the royal family of Qatar for use as the new Air Force One. With an estimated value of US$400 million, this would be the most valuable gift ever extended to the United States from a foreign government. Although the gift will first be transferred to the Department of Defense and subsequently to the Trump presidential library foundation, it still could be in violation of the Emoluments Clause.[35] On May 12, an extensive media report about controversy arising over the gift made note that conservative political blogger and radio host Erick Erickson criticized the plan by Trump to accept the Qatar airplane and that he provided "widely held criticisms of the gift" by other conservatives to his followers.[36] On May 28th the Washington Post reported that no deal had been agreed because Qatar required a memorandum of understanding confirming that any transfer make it clear that the request had been initiated by the United States in order to ensure that Qatar had no legal liability.[37] On 7 July 2025, Pete Hegseth signed the memorandum of understanding.[38]

Retired military

[edit]

Under interpretations of the Emoluments Clause elaborated by the Comptroller General of the United States and the U.S. Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel (but which have never been tested in court) retired military personnel are forbidden from receiving employment, consulting fees, gifts, travel expenses, honoraria, or salary from foreign governments without prior consent from Congress. Per section 908 of title 37 of the United States Code, this requires advance approval from the Secretary of State and the Secretary of the relevant branch of the Armed Services.[39] Retired military officers have voiced concerns through the Retired Officers Association that applying the clause to themselves but not to retired civil service members is not an equal application of the clause, and therefore unconstitutional.[citation needed]

In 1942, Congress authorized members of the armed forces to accept any "decorations, orders, medals and emblems" offered by allied nations during the course of World War II or up to one year following its conclusion.[40] Notably, Gen. Dwight D. Eisenhower accepted a number of titles and awards pursuant to this authorization after the fall of Nazi Germany, including a knighthood in Denmark's highest order of chivalry, the Order of the Elephant.[41]

Congress has also consented in advance to the receipt from foreign governments by officials of the United States government (including military personnel) of a variety of gifts, subject to a variety of conditions, in the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act[42] and section 108A of the Mutual Educational and Cultural Exchange Act, otherwise known as the Fulbright–Hays Act of 1961.[43] Under these rules numerous foreign decorations have been awarded to American military and civilian personnel, such as for diplomatic service or during the Vietnam and Gulf Wars. Presidents Obama and Trump both received the Collar of the Order of Abdulaziz Al Saud from Saudi Arabia, a decoration frequently given to heads of state.[44]

The New York Times has reported that, according to two defense officials, the Army is investigating whether Michael T. Flynn "received money from the Russian government during a trip he took to Moscow in 2015" while he was a government official.[45] According to the officials, there was no record that Flynn has "filed the required paperwork for the trip", as required by the Emoluments Clause.[45]

Titles of nobility

[edit]

The issue of titles was of serious importance to the American Revolutionaries and the Framers of the Constitution. Some felt that titles of nobility had no place in an equal and just society because they clouded people's judgment. Thomas Paine, in a criticism on nobility in general, wrote:

Dignities and high sounding names have different effects on different beholders. The lustre of the Star and the title of My Lord, over-awe the superstitious vulgar, and forbid them to inquire into the character of the possessor: Nay more, they are, as it were, bewitched to admire in the great, the vices they would honestly condemn in themselves. This sacrifice of common sense is the certain badge which distinguishes slavery from freedom; for when men yield up the privilege of thinking, the last shadow of liberty quits the horizon.[46]

Paine felt that titles blinded people from seeing the true character of a person by providing titled individuals a lustre. Many Americans connected titles with the corruption that they had experienced from Great Britain,[47] while others, like Benjamin Franklin, did not have as negative a view of titles. He felt that if a title is ascending, that is, it is achieved through hard work during a person's lifetime, it is good because it encourages the title holder's posterity to aspire to achieve the same or greater title; however, Franklin commented, that if a title is descending, that is, it is passed down from the title holder to his posterity, then it is:

groundless and absurd, but often hurtful to that Posterity, since it is apt to make them proud, disdaining to be employ'd in useful Arts, and thence falling into Poverty, and all the Meannesses, Servility, and Wretchedness attending it; which is the present case with much of what is called the Noblesse in Europe.[48]

President's title

[edit]

One of the first issues that the United States Senate dealt with was the title of president. Vice President John Adams called the senators' attention to this pressing procedural matter. Most senators were averse to calling the president anything that resembled the titles of European monarchs, yet John Adams proceeded to recommend the title "His Highness, the President of the United States, and Protector of their Liberties," an attempt to imitate the titles of the British monarch ("By the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, Prince-Elector of Hannover, Duke of Brunswick") and the French monarch ("By the Grace of God, Most Christian King of France and Navarre."

Some senators favored "His Elective Majesty" or "His Excellency" (the latter of which would become the standard form of address for elected presidents of later republics). James Madison, a member of the House of Representatives, declared that the European titles were ill-suited for the "genius of the people" and "the nature of our Government". Washington became completely embarrassed with the topic and so the senators dropped it; subsequently, the president would simply be called the "President of the United States" or "Mr. President", drawing a sharp distinction between American and European customs.[49]

Under the rules of etiquette, the President, Vice President, members of both houses of Congress, governors of states, members of state legislatures, and mayors are accorded the title "The Honorable".[50]

Internationally, the President is referred to as His Excellency.[51]

Titles of Nobility Amendment

[edit]
Main article: Titles of Nobility Amendment

In 1810, Democratic–Republican Senator Philip Reed of Maryland introduced a Constitutional amendment expanding upon this clause's ban on titles of nobility.[52] Under the terms of this amendment, any United States citizen who accepted, claimed, received or retained any title of nobility from a foreign government would be stripped of their U.S. citizenship. After being approved by the Senate on April 27, 1810, by a vote of 19–5.[53] and the House of Representatives on May 1, 1810, by a vote of 87–3,[54] the amendment, titled "Article Thirteen", was sent to the state legislatures for ratification. On two occasions between 1812 and 1816 it was within two states of the number needed to become a valid part of the Constitution.[55] As Congress did not set a time limit for its ratification, the amendment is still technically pending before the states. Currently, ratification by an additional 26 states would be necessary for this amendment to be adopted.[56]

References

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Foreign Emoluments Clause

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Foreign Emoluments Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution stating: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the : And no Person holding any or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the , accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." This clause applies broadly to all federal officeholders, including the President, and aims to bar of foreign benefits that could compromise official duties. Ratified in as part of the original , the clause drew from colonial experiences with British and state-level prohibitions under the , reflecting the Framers' intent to safeguard republican government from foreign intrigue and undue influence. Its core purpose, as articulated in founding-era debates, was to exclude by preventing officeholders from receiving emoluments—understood originally as profits, advantages, or compensations—from foreign governments, thereby preserving loyalty to the over potential foreign patrons. Enforcement historically relied on congressional consent for permissible acceptances, such as gifts from foreign dignitaries, with early examples including George Washington's reported disclosures of minor foreign presents to . Interpretations of "emoluments" have centered on whether the term encompasses only salary-like payments or extends to private gains, such as profits from hotels patronized by foreign s; originalist analyses emphasize the narrower, compensation-focused meaning prevalent in 18th-century usage to avoid overbroad application that could hinder . The clause saw limited judicial scrutiny until the , when lawsuits alleging presidential violations—primarily tied to dealings—were filed but largely dismissed on jurisdictional grounds like standing or , without definitive rulings on merits, underscoring Congress's primary role. These disputes highlighted ongoing debates over the clause's scope amid , though no convictions under it have occurred, reflecting its function more as a prophylactic norm than a frequently litigated .

Constitutional Text

Wording of the Clause

The Foreign Emoluments Clause is contained in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the , which states: "No Title of shall be granted by the : And no Person holding any of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the , accept of any present, Emolument, , or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State." This provision consists of two distinct prohibitions in a single clause. The first bars the federal government from granting titles of nobility, reflecting concerns over aristocratic privileges inherited from British monarchical practices. The second addresses emoluments, prohibiting officeholders from accepting, absent congressional consent, any "present, Emolument, Office, or Title" from foreign sovereigns, with the expansive phrase "of any kind whatever" underscoring a broad intent to preclude undue foreign influence. The clause's language employs 18th-century phrasing, such as "emolument" (derived from Latin for profit or advantage) and "present" (meaning ), to target both tangible benefits like or and intangible ones like offices or titles, without explicit enumeration to avoid loopholes. Its placement in Article I, Section 9—among limitations on congressional powers—indicates it operates as a structural restraint on executive and legislative branches alike, requiring affirmative congressional approval for exceptions. The Foreign Emoluments Clause appears in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, immediately following the Titles of Nobility Clause within the same provision, which states: "No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States." This prohibition bars the federal government from conferring hereditary or noble titles, a restriction rooted in republican principles to avoid aristocratic privileges and foreign influence through honors. A key complementary provision is the Domestic Emoluments Clause in Article II, Section 1, Clause 7, which specifies that the President "shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the , or any of them," referring to the federal government or states, beyond his fixed compensation. Unlike the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which applies broadly to federal officeholders and permits congressional consent for foreign benefits, the Domestic Emoluments Clause contains no such exception and targets only the President to prevent undue domestic influence or dependency on legislative or state largesse. These clauses together form part of the Constitution's framework, with the Foreign Emoluments Clause addressing external threats and the Domestic variant focusing on internal ones, though neither explicitly defines "emolument" uniformly across judicial interpretations. The Clause in Article II, Section 4, which includes "" among impeachable offenses for the President and other civil officers, intersects indirectly by providing enforcement against related abuses of office involving exchanges, though it requires proof of corrupt intent distinct from mere acceptance of prohibited benefits.

Historical Origins

Pre-Constitutional Influences

The practice of foreign governments bestowing gifts, titles, and emoluments upon and officials to exert influence dates to at least the fourteenth through eighteenth centuries in , where monarchs routinely presented lavish items such as jewels, plate, and tapestries to foreign envoys. In the American colonies, British officials frequently extracted fees, perquisites, and favors from colonial assemblies and populations, fostering perceptions of that fueled grievances against monarchical patronage and foreign meddling. These experiences underscored the vulnerability of officeholders to divided loyalties, prompting early American reformers to seek stricter safeguards against such influences. A notable departure from European norms appeared in the Dutch Republic's 1651 edict prohibiting its ministers from accepting foreign gifts, which served as a model for preventing through external inducements. During the , diplomatic missions to France highlighted these risks: in 1778, American envoy received an opulent gold snuffbox encrusted with diamonds from King , valued at approximately 8,000 livres, which debated and ultimately permitted him to retain to avoid diplomatic offense but with explicit congressional approval. Similarly, Silas , another commissioner, faced accusations from Arthur Lee of profiting personally from a jeweled snuffbox gifted by the French king, exacerbating intra-mission rivalries and congressional concerns over potential foreign leverage. These incidents reinforced fears that unchecked emoluments could compromise American . The formalized these apprehensions in Article VI, adopted by the Continental Congress on November 15, 1777, and ratified on March 1, 1781, which barred "any person holding any of profit or trust under the , or any of them," from accepting "any present, emolument, or title of any kind whatever from any king, prince or foreign power" absent congressional consent, with violations subjecting the offender to forfeiture of and legislative . This provision directly addressed colonial-era distrust of foreign influence while codifying the need for legislative oversight, marking one of the few structural elements retained nearly verbatim in the 1787 to curb corruption and ensure loyalty to the republican system.

Framing Convention and Ratification

The Foreign Emoluments Clause emerged during the Constitutional Convention in , which convened from May 25 to September 17, 1787, drawing from prior anti-corruption measures in the and several state constitutions that prohibited officeholders from accepting foreign gifts without legislative consent. The clause first appeared in the draft constitution reported by the Committee of Detail on August 6, 1787, stating: "No person holding any office of profit or trust under the U. S. shall without the consent of the , accept of any present emolument office or title of any kind whatever from any King Prince or foreign State." This formulation closely mirrored Article VI of the , adopted in 1781, which barred Confederation officeholders from accepting foreign presents or emoluments. On September 4, 1787, the Convention delegates unanimously approved the clause as part of Article VII, Section 9, with no recorded debate in James Madison's notes or other contemporaneous accounts, suggesting broad consensus on its necessity to curb foreign influence and among federal officers. The provision was retained without alteration through subsequent committee reviews and the final engrossment of the on September 15, 1787, before signing on September 17. Its inclusion reflected delegates' concerns, rooted in colonial experiences with British ministerial and recent incidents like foreign gifts to American officials under the , though specific Convention discussions focused more on broader structural safeguards against executive overreach. Ratification debates from September 1787 to May 1788 across state conventions elicited minimal controversy over the clause, as Federalists portrayed it as an essential barrier against foreign intrigue, while Anti-Federalists raised few objections, viewing it as insufficiently robust compared to state-level analogs but not a fatal flaw. In the ratifying convention on June 16, 1788, , a non-signing delegate who later supported , defended the clause as a safeguard preventing "the baneful influence of foreign bribes upon the and of our rulers," emphasizing ional consent as a check on potential abuses. Similar affirmations appeared in and conventions, where the provision was cited to assuage fears of monarchical , contributing to its unopposed acceptance amid broader disputes over federal power. New Hampshire's on June 21, 1788, secured the state approval, activating the effective March 4, 1789, with the clause intact as a foundational measure.

Original Meaning

Definition of "Emoluments"

The term "emoluments," as used in the Foreign Emoluments Clause of Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, originally referred to compensation, profit, or financial gain arising from office, employment, or services rendered. Eighteenth-century dictionaries, such as those consulted by the framers, defined it as "the profit arising from office or employment" or "advantage; gain; profit," often in contexts tied to official duties rather than incidental benefits. This understanding distinguished "emoluments" from "presents" (gifts without quid pro quo) listed separately in the clause, emphasizing remuneration for exertions or positions of trust. Original public meaning scholarship, drawing on ratification-era debates and state constitutions, construes "emoluments" in the clause as benefits with financial value received by reason of public office, including salaries, fees, perquisites, or other compensation linked to official functions. For example, discussions in the and ratifying conventions (1788) applied the term to gains annexed to government roles, reflecting concerns over foreign payments that could incentivize divided loyalties. This interpretation aligns with pre-constitutional practices under the , where ional approval was sought for diplomatic fees or bounties from foreign entities, treating them as office-derived emoluments rather than unrelated private profits. The definition excludes passive or market-based advantages unrelated to public service, as founding-era usage—rooted in British parliamentary reforms replacing variable fees with fixed salaries—focused on curbing corruption through official perquisites, not prohibiting all foreign-sourced benefits. While some contemporary analyses invoke broader dictionary senses of "any advantage," historical evidence from framers' writings and contemporary legal texts prioritizes the office-connected meaning to effect the clause's aim of preventing foreign influence via compensated disloyalty.

Intent to Prevent Corruption

The Framers of the U.S. Constitution incorporated the Foreign Emoluments Clause to prevent among federal holders by prohibiting the acceptance of any present, emolument, , or from foreign states without congressional , thereby shielding officials from undue foreign influence that could compromise their loyalty and decision-making. This intent stemmed from a recognition that foreign governments historically sought to sway policymakers through gifts and favors, as seen in European courts where such practices eroded , and in the young American republic where delegates received overtures from foreign envoys during the Revolutionary era. The clause's design ensured that U.S. officers prioritized national interests over potential personal gains from abroad, addressing a core vulnerability in republican governance where even subtle inducements could foster dependency or bias. At the Constitutional Convention, the provision encountered scant debate, reflecting consensus on its anti-corruption purpose; on September 13, 1787, delegates like and successfully amended an earlier draft to explicitly include "foreign" states, extending protections beyond domestic concerns to bar any foreign-derived benefits that might corrupt officials. Madison's notes from the convention indicate this refinement aimed to close loopholes for foreign interference, drawing directly from Article VI of the , which had similarly restricted state-level acceptance of foreign gifts to avert corruption but lacked coverage for individual officers. The unanimous adoption of the clause on September 14, 1787, underscored the Framers' determination to institutionalize safeguards against the "corrupting emoluments" that warned could undermine executive integrity in analogous domestic contexts. During , Federalists invoked the clause to assuage Anti-Federalist fears of executive overreach and foreign meddling, portraying it as a deliberate mechanism to maintain official impartiality and prevent the kind of influence peddling that had plagued confederations like the , where foreign powers bribed officials to sway policy. Proponents argued that without such restrictions, officeholders might prioritize foreign patrons over American sovereignty, echoing historical episodes like British ministers accepting Continental subsidies during the Walpole era. This rationale positioned the clause not merely as a procedural rule but as a foundational tool, requiring to evaluate any exceptions and thereby promoting transparency in potential foreign dealings. from post- practice, including early congressional refusals of foreign gifts to diplomats, validated the Framers' causal expectation that unchecked emoluments would invite exploitation and erode .

Scope and Applications

Applicability to the Presidency

The Foreign Emoluments Clause, by its terms in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution, prohibits any "Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]" from accepting foreign presents, emoluments, offices, or titles without congressional consent. This language plainly encompasses the President, who occupies the chief executive office established under Article II, Section 1, as an office of profit and trust compensated by federal salary and entrusted with national authority. The clause's sweeping scope reflects a deliberate design to bar all federal officeholders from foreign benefits that could compromise independence, without exemption for elected positions. At the Framing, delegates expressed intent to shield the executive branch, including the Presidency, from foreign , viewing an elected president's temporary tenure as heightening vulnerability to influence compared to a hereditary . noted risks of foreign intrigue targeting the president due to election dynamics, while Charles Pinckney advocated the clause's inclusion to exclude such emoluments from officeholders. During Virginia's ratifying convention on June 17, 1788, affirmed the provision restrained the president specifically from foreign emoluments to avert , with as the enforcement mechanism. Scholarly analysis, including Department of Justice opinions, confirms this original understanding applies the clause to presidents, as in the 2009 assessment of potential receipt by President Obama requiring consent. A minority view, advanced by legal scholar Seth Barrett Tillman, contends the phrase "under them" limits the clause to congressional appointees, excluding elected executives like the president; however, this interpretation lacks support in ratification debates and contravenes the clause's unqualified text and anti- purpose. Historical practice under early presidents illustrates application with varying adherence to consent requirements. George Washington accepted a gold key and portrait from the French Republic in 1790 and 1792, retaining them without seeking explicit congressional approval, though he deposited other diplomatic gifts in the State Department. Thomas Jefferson, upon receiving an Arabian stallion from the Pasha of Tripoli in 1804 amid Barbary negotiations, treated it as lacking sufficient value to trigger prohibition but auctioned similar consular gifts with congressional authorization in 1836 under later precedent. Later presidents, such as Andrew Jackson in 1830, sought and obtained congressional consent for a gold medal from the French Chamber of Deputies, establishing a norm codified in the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966 (18 U.S.C. § 201(b), § 7342), which operationalizes the clause by requiring reporting and consent for presidential gifts exceeding minimal value. No Supreme Court ruling has directly adjudicated presidential applicability, but uniform executive branch interpretations and congressional oversight affirm its binding force.

Applications to Other Officials

The Foreign Emoluments Clause applies broadly to any "Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]," encompassing federal officials across the executive, legislative, and judicial branches beyond the President, such as cabinet secretaries, ambassadors, military officers, members of , and federal judges. This scope reflects the Framers' intent to prevent foreign influence and corruption in all federal offices, requiring explicit ional for acceptance of any foreign present, emolument, , or . While some scholars debate its extension to elected officials like members of , arguing the clause targets appointed positions, prevailing interpretations and historical practice presume coverage for legislators as holders of offices of profit or trust. In the executive branch, the clause has constrained cabinet-level officials, diplomats, and from accepting foreign benefits ; for instance, U.S. ambassadors are prohibited from receiving gifts from foreign governments to safeguard diplomatic independence. officers, active and retired, face restrictions on foreign government employment or compensation, with Congress occasionally providing blanket consents, such as in 1977 for U.S. armed forces retirees accepting foreign positions. The Department of Defense and Office of Government Ethics enforce these limits administratively, treating unauthorized foreign compensation as an erroneous payment owed to the U.S. government. For the judiciary, the clause undisputedly binds appointed federal judges, who must avoid foreign emoluments to maintain , though no major litigated cases have tested enforcement against them. Members of are subject to the provision, with rules requiring disclosure of foreign travel or gifts, but constitutional violations remain rare and unlitigated, often handled through self-regulation rather than . Overall, applications to non-presidential officials emphasize preventive consent mechanisms over post-hoc litigation, with statutory implementations like the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act (5 U.S.C. § 7342) operationalizing the clause for minor gifts while reserving significant emoluments for congressional approval.

Historical Consents and Waivers

Congress has occasionally provided for federal officials to accept foreign emoluments through specific joint resolutions or statutes, particularly in the 19th century, reflecting the clause's requirement for explicit approval to prevent undue foreign influence. One of the earliest documented cases arose in 1798, when former U.S. envoy sought permission to accept customary presents from the kings of and , received during his diplomatic service. The authorized acceptance, but the withheld , citing a policy against officials deriving personal benefit from foreign states, thereby denying Pinckney the emoluments. In the , several presidents obtained congressional consent for handling foreign gifts, often authorizing their sale or deposit into the U.S. rather than personal retention. For instance, on September 14, 1840, passed a (S.J. Res. 4, 26th Cong., 5 Stat. 409) permitting President to dispose of presents from the of , including jewelry and other items valued at thousands of dollars, with proceeds directed to the . Similar resolutions addressed gifts to Presidents , , and ; for Harrison, a 1896 public resolution (Pub. Res. 54-39, 29 Stat. 759) allowed acceptance and handling of a jeweled snuffbox and other items from the Russian government. These actions underscored 's role in scrutinizing potential conflicts, frequently opting for public disposition over private benefit. Prior to the , such consents were and rare, with presidents like and typically depositing foreign gifts with the State Department or without seeking approval, treating them as U.S. property. This practice evolved with statutory reforms; the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966 (Pub. L. No. 89-673, 80 Stat. 952, codified at 5 U.S.C. §§ 7341–7346) marked a shift by granting general congressional for federal employees, including high officials, to retain nominal foreign gifts valued below a threshold (currently $480, adjusted for ), provided they are disclosed and not accepted under circumstances implying influence. Higher-value items remain subject to specific consent or forfeiture to the government, maintaining the clause's intent while accommodating diplomatic norms.

Titles of Nobility Prohibition

Historical Context

The prohibition against titles of nobility in the U.S. reflected the founding generation's deep-seated aversion to and hereditary privilege, rooted in the revolutionary break from British monarchical traditions. During the colonial period and the War for Independence, Americans viewed noble titles as symbols of inequality and corruption that concentrated power in unaccountable elites, incompatible with emerging republican ideals of and merit-based governance. Influenced by Enlightenment thinkers like and , who critiqued feudal hierarchies, the Continental Congress and early state assemblies rejected such distinctions; for example, the Declaration of Independence implicitly repudiated them by asserting natural equality among men. Several post-1776 state explicitly banned titles of nobility to safeguard egalitarian principles, as seen in Virginia's 1776 Declaration of Rights, which affirmed that "no title of nobility... ought to be created." This anti-aristocratic ethos found federal expression in Article VI of the , adopted by on November 15, 1777, and ratified by 1781, which stated that "no person holding any or trust under them, or any of them, accept any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any , or foreign state" without congressional consent. The provision aimed to insulate American officials from foreign influence and , drawing from European experiences where monarchs used titles to sway loyalties, as documented in diplomatic histories of the era. Under the Articles, enforcement was limited by the weak , but it established a against as a tool of corruption, with no recorded grants of titles by . At the Constitutional Convention in from May to 1787, the titles of nobility prohibition was incorporated into Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 with virtually no debate, indicating broad consensus on its necessity. Delegates, including and , adopted the language nearly verbatim from the , extending the ban to prohibit the itself from granting any titles while requiring congressional approval for officeholders accepting foreign ones. Madison's notes from the convention record no substantive objections, underscoring the clause's self-evident role in preventing the entrenchment of a domestic that could undermine republican equality and foster factionalism, as warned in Anti-Federalist writings like those of Melancton Smith. During ratification debates from 1787 to 1788, Federalist advocates such as in affirmed its importance without elaboration, treating it as a safeguard against monarchical creep evident in critiques of the proposed executive branch.

Modern Relevance

The Titles of Nobility Prohibition has maintained its relevance by reinforcing the ' commitment to a non-aristocratic , where no hereditary privileges or formal ranks above are conferred by the federal government. Since the 's in 1788, there have been no recorded attempts by or the executive to grant titles of , underscoring the clause's success in preventing the establishment of a domestic class akin to European monarchies. This adherence aligns with the Framers' intent to avoid entrenched elites, as evidenced by the absence of any statutory or judicial deviations, and it symbolically counters modern concerns over wealth-based stratification by constitutionally barring official hereditary distinctions. The provision prohibiting federal officeholders from accepting foreign titles without congressional consent operates as a safeguard against subtle foreign influence, with exercising its waiver authority in select diplomatic and contexts. For example, consents have been granted for honorary awards to high-ranking officials, ensuring such honors do not compromise loyalty while facilitating . This process, governed by statutes like 5 U.S.C. § 7342 for gifts and titles, requires reporting and approval, and violations could trigger removal under or other accountability measures, though no modern prosecutions have occurred specifically under this clause. In contemporary legal discourse, the clause occasionally surfaces in arguments against perceived hereditary privileges, such as legacy admissions preferences at , which some scholars contend confer unearned status resembling and thus violate the prohibition's anti-aristocratic core. A 2006 analysis in the Washington University Law Review posited that such policies create unconstitutional "de facto titles" by favoring offspring of , potentially entrenching class divisions. However, these interpretations lack judicial support and represent outlier views amid broader emoluments-focused debates, with courts upholding the clause's traditional narrow scope against formal titles rather than extending it to informal advantages.

Enforcement and Controversies

Judicial Interpretations

The Foreign Emoluments Clause has received scant substantive , with courts historically deferring enforcement to and addressing challenges primarily on procedural grounds such as standing and rather than the merits. The has invoked the Clause in dicta for rhetorical emphasis but has never resolved a direct constitutional dispute under it. For instance, in Citizens United v. (558 U.S. 310, 424 n.51, 2010), the Court referenced it alongside other provisions to underscore concerns over foreign influence in domestic affairs, without analyzing its scope or application. Lower federal courts have occasionally opined on the Clause's elements in recent litigation, though these holdings lack precedential force due to subsequent vacaturs. In cases challenging former President Donald Trump's retention of business interests, district courts in and of Columbia adopted a broad definition of "emolument" encompassing any profit or advantage derived from foreign governments, and affirmed the Clause's applicability to the as an "Office of Profit or Trust." Specifically, in District of Columbia v. Trump (315 F. Supp. 3d 875, D. Md. 2018), Judge Theodore Chuang ruled that the president's hotel revenues from foreign patrons potentially violated the Clause absent ional consent, rejecting narrower interpretations limited to compensation for official services. Similarly, in Blumenthal v. Trump (373 F. Supp. 3d 191, D.D.C. 2019), Judge Christopher Cooper endorsed this expansive view while denying standing to ional plaintiffs. These rulings, however, were vacated on appeal: the D.C. Circuit in Blumenthal (949 F.3d 14, 2020) held that individual legislators lacked Article III standing due to insufficient injury to their voting power, and the Fourth Circuit summarily vacated the Maryland decision (838 F. App'x 789, 2021). Appellate courts in emoluments challenges have grappled with standing doctrines, sometimes permitting suits by private competitors alleging economic injury from foreign patronage diverted to presidential properties. The Second Circuit in Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Trump (953 F.3d 178, 2020) recognized such "competitive injury" standing for hospitality plaintiffs and upheld a broad emoluments interpretation, but this too was vacated by the Supreme Court as moot following Trump's departure from office on January 20, 2021. The Supreme Court, in shadow docket orders on January 25, 2021, vacated both the Second Circuit's judgment in CREW v. Trump (No. 20-330) and a related Fourth Circuit ruling in Trump v. District of Columbia (No. 20-331) under the United States v. Munsingwear (330 U.S. 262, 1947) doctrine, effectively nullifying the lower courts' analyses without endorsing or rejecting them. Earlier, in a 2017 district court ruling on a related suit, Judge Richard Leon dismissed claims under the Clause, holding that private parties lack authority to enforce it and that such matters reside exclusively with Congress. Prior to the , judicial engagement with the Clause was negligible, reflecting its traditional treatment as a political safeguard rather than a justiciable norm. No reported federal cases from the founding era through the substantively construed its terms, with enforcement instead occurring through congressional resolutions or executive practice. This paucity of precedent underscores the Clause's reliance on legislative oversight, as courts have consistently avoided wading into interbranch disputes over foreign gifts without clear congressional invocation.

Congressional Role

The Foreign Emoluments Clause vests with explicit authority to to any federal officeholder's acceptance of presents, emoluments, offices, or titles from foreign states, thereby serving as a check against potential or undue foreign influence. This mechanism, unique to the U.S. compared to its predecessor in the , allows to evaluate the propriety of such benefits on a case-by-case or general basis, ensuring legislative oversight rather than unilateral executive discretion. Historically, has exercised this power sparingly, often through private bills, resolutions, or statutes that provide prospective approval for routine or nominal foreign gifts to avoid administrative burdens. Early exercises of congressional consent included approvals for ceremonial items, such as President Andrew Jackson's 1830 request for permission to accept a and cane from the King of , which Congress granted via resolution, and President Abraham Lincoln's 1864 acceptance of a sword from the Sultan of Turkey following legislative approval. These instances reflect a pattern where presidents proactively sought consent for high-profile gifts to affirm compliance, though not all did so; for example, retained foreign diplomatic presents without requesting approval. For non-presidential officials, has consented more routinely to foreign military decorations or awards, particularly for ambassadors and service members, often via general statutory frameworks rather than individual resolutions. In the modern era, codified much of its authority through the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of , which permits federal officials to accept gifts valued under $480 (as adjusted for ) from foreign governments without specific approval, provided they are reported, while requiring disposal or congressional for higher-value items to prevent personal retention. This legislation effectively provides blanket for benefits, balancing goals with diplomatic practicality, though it does not supplant the constitutional requirement for explicit in substantial cases. retains enforcement leverage through investigations, proceedings, or withholding , as demonstrated in partisan probes during the Trump administration (2017–2021), where committees examined potential emoluments from foreign patrons at presidential properties but did not culminate in formal consent denials or convictions. Such actions underscore 's role as the primary enforcer, though political divisions have limited proactive consents or prohibitions beyond statutory norms.

Presidential Cases and Debates

Prior to the , no federal court cases directly tested the Foreign Emoluments Clause against a sitting U.S. president, though historical practices occasionally raised questions. accepted two diplomatic gifts—a portrait of of and a key to the —without seeking congressional consent, interpreting the clause as permitting such items under customary international norms. Subsequent presidents, such as , received medals from foreign governments like and , but these were addressed through later congressional legislation rather than litigation. The enactment of the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act in 1966 provided a framework for accepting minimal-value gifts with reporting requirements, effectively granting blanket consent for low-value items and averting disputes. The clause's application to presidents gained prominence during Donald Trump's presidency (2017–2021), when three major lawsuits alleged violations stemming from foreign government expenditures at Trump-owned properties. In District of Columbia v. Trump (filed June 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of ), the District of Columbia and attorneys general claimed that the Trump International Hotel in , received payments constituting emoluments, including over $270,000 from Saudi Arabian lobbyists and diplomats shortly after Trump's inauguration. The district court denied a motion to dismiss on standing grounds, but the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed standing in 2019; the vacated the rulings as moot in January 2021 after Trump's departure from office. Parallel suits included Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) v. Trump (filed 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York), alleging similar hotel patronage by foreign officials as unconstitutional emoluments without congressional approval; the Second Circuit upheld dismissal for lack of standing in 2020. Additionally, Blumenthal v. Trump (filed 2017 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia) involved Democratic members of Congress asserting injury from unconsented foreign benefits to Trump properties; the D.C. Circuit dismissed for lack of standing in 2020, ruling that individual legislators could not sue absent institutional injury. None reached merits adjudication, leaving interpretive questions unresolved by courts, with dismissals primarily on jurisdictional grounds such as standing and mootness; no criminal convictions resulted from these allegations. Debates centered on the clause's scope, with plaintiffs arguing a broad definition of "emolument" encompassing any profit or advantage from foreign states—such as hotel revenues from Saudi Arabia (615,000+estimated),China(615,000+ estimated), China (5.4 million to Trump Tower retail), UAE, and Qatar—while the Trump administration contended a narrower view limited to direct compensation for services rendered. Trump retained ownership via a revocable trust managed by his sons, rejecting full divestment, and Congress provided no consent. A January 2024 House Oversight Committee report, based on subpoenaed records, documented at least $7.8 million in foreign government payments to Trump businesses from 2017 to 2021 across at least 20 countries, including from Saudi Arabia, China, UAE, Qatar, and Kuwaiti embassy events at the D.C. hotel costing over $150,000; Trump publicly acknowledged retaining such profits. These cases highlighted tensions over enforcement mechanisms, with critics arguing judicial reluctance and congressional inaction undermined the clause's anti-corruption purpose, though procedural barriers precluded definitive rulings.

Contemporary Implications

Interpretive Disputes

The primary interpretive dispute concerning the Foreign Emoluments Clause revolves around "emolument." Originalist scholarship, drawing from 18th-century dictionaries and usage, contends that "emolument" broadly encompasses any profit, gain, or advantage, not limited to compensation for services rendered. This view aligns with the clause's purpose to prevent foreign influence and corruption by prohibiting federal officeholders from receiving any benefit that could compromise loyalty, regardless of intent or . In contrast, narrower interpretations, often advanced in defenses against modern applications, restrict "emolument" to payments or benefits received specifically as compensation for discharging duties to the foreign state. A related debate concerns the clause's application to indirect benefits received through private business interests owned by the officeholder. Under the broad original meaning, benefits accruing to a president's personal enterprises from foreign governments—such as payments for hotel stays or licensing deals—constitute emoluments if they provide any advantage to the officeholder, even absent direct action in exchange. Contemporary examples include documented expenditures by foreign governments at Trump Organization properties totaling at least $7.8 million during Donald Trump's first presidency, as detailed in congressional oversight reports, and reported investments by UAE-linked entities in Trump-associated cryptocurrency ventures such as World Liberty Financial in 2025. Proponents of this expansive scope argue it upholds the Framers' intent to insulate officeholders from subtle foreign inducements, as private gains could still exert influence over decisions. Opposing views maintain that arm's-length commercial transactions, unconnected to services, fall outside the , emphasizing that the provision targets rather than incidental profits from preexisting businesses. The scope of "foreign State" presents another contention, particularly regarding state-owned enterprises and instrumentalities. Courts and scholars generally hold that entities controlled or owned by foreign governments qualify as "foreign States" under the clause, extending its prohibitions to benefits from such commercial actors. This interpretation, rooted in historical precedents like early diplomatic practices, aims to close loopholes where governments might channel influence through proxies. However, disputes arise over the threshold of control: purely private corporations with nominal foreign investment are typically excluded, but presumptive inclusion applies to sovereign wealth funds or majority state-held firms unless proven otherwise. Judicial interpretations remain limited, with federal courts in emoluments challenges often dismissing cases on standing or grounds without resolving textual disputes, leaving the broad vs. narrow debate largely unsettled by . Congressional consent, explicitly required for any acceptance, has been granted sparingly in history—such as for minor diplomatic gifts—but modern applications, including potential presidential business dealings, highlight ongoing tensions over whether or disclosure suffices absent explicit waiver. These interpretive uncertainties underscore the clause's role in contemporary debates, where original public meaning favors stringent restrictions to safeguard institutional .

Potential Reforms

Scholars and policymakers have proposed statutory reforms to strengthen of the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which prohibits federal officeholders from accepting foreign emoluments without congressional , amid debates over its application to modern business interests. These include creating explicit prohibitions on receiving foreign emoluments and establishing civil mechanisms through the Department of Justice, allowing actions by private citizens with penalties up to three times the emolument's value. Such measures aim to address the clause's historical under-, as has granted only 11 times since 1789, mostly in the for minor diplomatic gifts. Legislative proposals like the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Enforcement Act would impose reporting requirements on federal officials, mandating disclosure of potential emoluments to for consent decisions within 90 days, with automatic prohibitions if no action is taken. Complementary ideas include amending the of 1978 to require presidents and vice presidents to divest or place into blind trusts all assets posing emoluments risks, such as properties patronized by foreign governments, to preempt conflicts without relying on voluntary compliance. Broader packages, such as elements of the Protecting Our Democracy Act, seek to codify interpretive clarity by defining "emolument" to encompass indirect benefits like revenues from foreign officials, while empowering inspectors general to investigate violations independently of executive discretion. Conservative-leaning reforms emphasize congressional structures for routine consent reviews of presidential foreign income, potentially via annual audits, to resolve ambiguities without , given the high bar for under Article V. These approaches prioritize statutory layering over textual changes, reflecting the clause's original intent to curb foreign influence through procedural rigor rather than presidential self-regulation.

References

  1. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/article-1/section-9/clause-8/
  2. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C8-3/ALDE_00013206/
  3. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C8-2/ALDE_00013205/
  4. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-8/historical-background-on-foreign-emoluments-clause
  5. https://georgialawreview.org/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/Robert-G.-Natelson-The-Original-Meaning-of-Emoluments-in-the-Constitution-52-Georgia-Law-Review-2018.pdf
  6. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-8/the-foreign-emoluments-clause-generally
  7. https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript
  8. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C8-1/ALDE_00013203/
  9. https://www.congress.gov/crs_external_products/IF/PDF/IF11086/IF11086.15.pdf
  10. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-8/foreign-emoluments-clause-generally
  11. https://www.brookings.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/gs_121616_emoluments-clause1.pdf
  12. https://scholarship.law.wm.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1938&context=wmborj
  13. https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/The-Text-and-History-of-the-Foreign-Emoluments-Clause.pdf
  14. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20191211/110331/HMKP-116-JU00-20191211-SD405.pdf
  15. https://constitutioncenter.org/the-constitution/articles/article-i/clauses/759
  16. https://webstersdictionary1828.com/Dictionary/emolument
  17. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-8/historical-background-on-the-foreign-emoluments-clause
  18. https://www.npr.org/2017/09/05/548002254/professor-37-historic-dictionaries-disagree-with-trumps-definition-of-emolument
  19. https://digitalcommons.law.umaryland.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3839&context=mlr
  20. https://annualsurveyofamericanlaw.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/74-2-The-Foreign-Emoluments-Clause.pdf
  21. https://www.justice.gov/olc/opinion/applicability-emoluments-clause-and-foreign-gifts-and-decorations-act-presidents-receipt
  22. http://journals.law.harvard.edu/jlpp/wp-content/uploads/sites/90/2017/05/Tillman_FINAL.pdf
  23. https://lawandhistoryreview.org/article/thomas-jefferson-and-the-arabian-stallion-a-research-note-on-the-third-president-and-the-foreign-emoluments-clause/
  24. https://www.acslaw.org/wp-content/uploads/old-uploads/originals/documents/Trump%2520and%2520the%2520Emoluments%2520Clause.pdf
  25. https://www.usni.org/magazines/proceedings/2018/may/beware-foreign-emoluments
  26. https://www.gao.gov/assets/gao-25-107145.pdf
  27. https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/Portals/102/summary_emoluments_clause_restrictions.pdf
  28. https://ethics.od.nih.gov/sites/default/files/topics/Summary-of-Emoluments-Clause-Restrictions-on-Civil-and-Military-Employment.pdf
  29. https://dodsoco.ogc.osd.mil/Portals/102/emoluments_clause_applications.pdf
  30. https://www.findlaw.com/litigation/legal-system/the-foreign-emoluments-clause.html
  31. https://constitution.congress.gov/browse/essay/artI-S9-C8-4/ALDE_00013204/
  32. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-1/section-9/clause-8/titles-of-nobility-and-the-constitution
  33. https://teachingamericanhistory.org/document/federalist-no-84-2/
  34. https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_lawreview/vol84/iss6/2/
  35. https://www.scotusblog.com/2021/01/justices-vacate-rulings-on-trump-and-emoluments/
  36. https://lyldenlawnews.com/2017/12/22/first-emoluments-clause-test-fails-court/
  37. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/congress-can-give-emoluments-clause-real-teeth
  38. https://www.theusconstitution.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/Foreign_Emoluments_101.pdf
  39. https://oag.dc.gov/about-oag/emoluments-lawsuit
  40. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-ducks-opportunity-trump-emoluments-cases
  41. https://levin-center.org/members-of-congress-emoluments-case/
  42. https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/trump-likely-benefited-from-13-6-million-in-payments-from-foreign-governments-during-his-presidency/
  43. https://www.bbc.com/news/business-67885908
  44. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/emoluments-clauses-explained
  45. http://oversightdemocrats.house.gov/news/press-releases/oversight-democrats-release-report-proving-trump-pocketed-millions-from-at-least
  46. https://globalanticorruptionblog.com/2021/02/04/the-emoluments-clause-cases-against-donald-trump-a-post-mortem/
  47. https://scholarlycommons.law.case.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3022&context=faculty_publications
  48. https://docs.house.gov/meetings/JU/JU00/20240110/116733/HMKP-118-JU00-20240110-SD005.pdf
  49. https://democrats-selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/democrats-selectcommitteeontheccp.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2-4-26-scc-letter-to-wlf.pdf
  50. https://www.aei.org/op-eds/trump-2-0-and-the-foreign-emoluments-clause/
  51. https://www.congress.gov/crs-external_products/R/PDF/R45992/R45992.1.pdf
  52. https://scholarship.law.umn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1091&context=mlr
  53. https://www.justsecurity.org/79908/2022-update-good-governance-paper-no-15-enforcing-the-emoluments-clauses/
  54. https://www.citizensforethics.org/reports-investigations/crew-reports/the-intensifying-threat-of-donald-trumps-emoluments/
  55. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/its-time-enact-reforms-curb-executive-branch-abuses
  56. https://ir.lawnet.fordham.edu/context/faculty_scholarship/article/2095/viewcontent/Enforcing_the_Intent_of_the_Constitution_s_Foreign_and_Domestic_ERevise.pdf
Add your contribution
Related Hubs
User Avatar
No comments yet.