Official Congressional Record
Mr. President, I am here today with a very straightforward, simple resolution. It is about enforcement. For most of my career, I was an enforcer: a Federal prosecutor, U.S. attorney for Connecticut, and then attorney general of the State of Connecticut for 20 years. So I know--we all know--that the law is dead letter if it is not enforced. And there is a very, very profoundly important law--in fact, our Constitution--that needs enforcement. That is the task that brings me to the Senate floor today. I am asking for a resolution to direct the Senate legal counsel to bring a civil action in the name of the U.S. Senate to enforce the foreign emoluments clause contained in article I of the Constitution. This clause states that the President cannot accept any gifts, payments, benefits, or anything else of value from foreign governments, unless he receives the consent of Congress. Presidents have uniformly obeyed the emoluments clause for all of our illustrious 250 years of existence. The Founders thought this clause was central to preserving our Nation. Why? Because at the time of our founding, we were a fledgling and struggling nation. Foreign powers like France and England were arrayed against us with potentates and rich businesspeople, powerful adversaries who could corrupt our leaders. And so specifically in the Constitution, as a matter of our national security--not just to prevent corruption, gift-taking that might violate our sense of morality, but as a matter of the defense of our Nation, they inserted the emoluments clause that required consent of Congress before the President, or any other public official, could accept anything of value, whether it be a benefit, an indirect payment--anything of value. And so now if you are a member of the armed services and you are asked to teach a course in another country and you are paid for it, you need to get permission. It applies to the lowliest of Federal officials and the highest. The emoluments clause is part of our Constitution. I know a lot about the emoluments clause because I sued Donald Trump under the emoluments clause during his first term, and we won at the district court level. In fact, we prevailed in that lawsuit, but then we were told that we had no standing. Under the Federal laws of procedure, a party in court, to successfully invoke the jurisdiction of the Federal courts, must have what is called standing, which is not just aggrievement but personal involvement and harm. And the court said, in effect: You are individual Members of Congress--there were more than 250 of us--but you are not the body; you are not the Senate; you are not the House of Representatives, which brings me here today because I want the U.S. Senate to take a stand--to stand up against the illegal practices of this President in taking an array of benefits, including payments--literally payments--in violation of the emoluments clause. The emoluments clause is a dead letter if it is not enforced, and our national security is at risk. President Trump's willingness to use the privileges of his office to enrich himself is well known to Americans, and it seems to have no bounds. Just this month, President Trump's gift from the government of Qatar--a $400 million jet--entered service as an interim Air Force One, but he wants to take that jet and then install it as part of his private library. In fact, he may use it afterward. We don't know. What we do know is costly modifications were required to ensure the installation of multiple top-secret systems to get the plane flight ready, and now it has to go back for more work because, in fact, the security system right now is inadequate. But we know taxpayers are going to foot the bill--a benefit to the President probably in excess of $1 billion. That jet barely scratches the surface of emoluments going to President Trump. In 2025, President Trump and his sons took about $500 million for a 49 percent stake in the Trump family crypto business, World Liberty Financial, invested by the MGX Fund Management Limited, which is an investment firm in turn backed by a UAE sovereign wealth fund at the initiative of Sheikh Tahnoon, the UAE's national security advisor and the brother of UAE's President. In other words, an investment by the UAE wealth fund, controlled by the ruling family of the UAE, for 49 percent in World Liberty Financial, $500 million. And then magically--magically--President Trump approved sales of $1.4 million in military equipment for the UAE. And in addition, the sale of highly sophisticated advanced chips necessary for the UAE to build a data center that could rival ours in the United States--our national security compromised as a result of payments to World Liberty Financial--the Trump--and, by the way, Witkoff--family crypto business. This kind of self-enrichment has made a very wealthy Donald Trump even wealthier. He made $2 billion last year--$2 billion in income--1.4 billion of it from crypto. It is not only offensive as a matter of self-enrichment, but it is a threat to our national security--exactly the same kind of threat that our Founders sought to prevent as a result of the emoluments clause. Not only has President Trump violated flagrantly the emoluments clause, but he has effectively slapped a ``for sale'' sign on the door of the Oval Office. He accepted a gold-plated desk clock and engraved gold bar as gifts from Swiss business executives before slashing Switzerland's tariff rate. He hosted a private gala dinner featuring a tour of the White House to reward top buyers of the Trump cryptocurrency meme coin. Attendees of that dinner included Chinese billionaires, CEOs, and investors with ties to the Chinese Communist Party. The American President is supposed to work for us, for the American people, for everyday Americans, not for his own self-enrichment, and that is what the emoluments clause is really supposed to guarantee-- that the President of the United States works for the United States, not for himself. As I mentioned, I tried to enforce the emoluments clause myself by filing a lawsuit on June 14, 2017. The United States Court for the District of Columbia held that we didn't have standing. I disagree. I think we do have standing under the law, but I respect the court's judgment; and so we are charting this path forward. This resolution is necessary now to give the Senate the ability to hold President Trump accountable on behalf of the American people to go to court and have our day before a judge who will assess the facts of this case and second guess me or any of us and rule and uphold the rule of law. I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to restore the dignity of the executive office and to assure enforcement of the Constitution of the United States of America. And so as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate consideration of S. Res. 807; that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table.
View on ourcommons.ca ↗
