Tracking Corruption and Conflicts in the Trump Administration

[Original version May 2, 2017; updated June 4, 2018]

The Trump Administration has been dogged by accusations that President Trump, as well as his family members and close associates, are seeking to use the presidency to advance their personal financial interests. While President Trump claims to have ceded control of the Trump Organization to his sons Eric and Donald Jr., the trust set up is porous at best, and reports indicate that the president can withdraw money from his more than 400 businesses at any time without disclosure.

Just as President Trump will receive “quarterly” updates on the Trump Organization from his son Eric, we will track and report on instances in which there are credible allegations of President Trump, his family, and his close associates exploiting their public power for private gain. We will organize the issues into the following four categories, which capture four related but distinct ways that political leaders may seek to leverage the power of public office to enrich themselves, their families, and their cronies:

  1. U.S. Government Payments to the Trump Organization
  2. Use of the Power of the Presidency to Promote Trump Brands
  3. U.S. Government Regulatory and Policy Decisions that Benefit Business Interests of the Trump Family and Senior Advisors
  4. Private and Foreign Interests Seeking to Influence the Trump Administration Through Dealings with Trump Businesses

1. U.S. Government Payments to the Trump Organization

One of the most direct ways that President Trump can profit from the presidency is by making decisions that effectively require U.S. government agencies to purchase goods or services from the Trump Organization. Though unseemly and costly to taxpayers, this is one of the less destructive forms of potential profiteering by President Trump, since it does not significantly distort U.S. policy. Illustrative examples that have been reported in the media include the following:

  • Secret Service at Trump Tower: Up until July 2017, the Secret Service, which is charged with protecting the President and his family, rented out two vacant floors of Trump Tower. This was not the first time the Secret Service had rented space from the government officials it is protecting. For example, when the Secret Service needed to protect former Vice President Joe Biden, the Service rented a nearby cottage that he owned. However, the payments were several orders of magnitude larger in the case of Trump Tower. In July 2017, the Secret Service vacated its rented space in Trump Tower because of disputes over terms of the lease, relocating to a trailer on the nearby sidewalk.
  • Department of Defense at Trump Tower: The Department of Defense has followed its standard practice of setting up a separate headquarters near the President’s private residence—in this case also in Trump Tower. The Department rented space near President Barack Obama’s Chicago home and rented a secure trailer near President George Bush’s ranch, but the sums of money involved in the Trump Tower rental are substantially larger. The Department of Defense apparently has a $2.39 million lease to rent space in Trump Tower from April 2017 through September 2018. (The Wall Street Journal obtained the redacted lease, which does not reveal the owner’s name, through a Freedom of Information Act request. In a letter to Representative Jackie Speier, a Defense Department official claimed that the unit is privately owned and that the rental transaction would not benefit President Trump. The $130,000 monthly rental price tag is well above the most expensive recent listings at Trump Tower.)
  • Trips to Mar-a-Lago and other Trump Properties: As of June 1, 2018, President Trump had spent 157days at properties owned by the Trump Organization, with the bulk of that time at the Trump National Golf Club in Bedminster (40 days) and Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida (72 days). On these visits, the Secret Service must pay the Trump Organization directly for any costs related to protecting the president (including nearly $60,000 in golf car rentals so far this year). In fact, expense forms show that the Secret Service spent $63,700 at the Mar-a-Lago between February and April 2017 alone.
  • Trump Properties Abroad: If President Trump or his immediate family travel abroad and choose to stay at a Trump property, the U.S. government will pay the Trump Organization to rent space for the Secret Service and any additional necessary support. For example, the State Department paid $15,000 for 19 rooms at the Trump hotel in Vancouver when Donald Jr., Eric, and Tiffany Trump attended an opening ceremony there in February 2017. (This amount does not include undisclosed Secret Service expenses for the trip.)
  • Secret Service on Trump Jets: The President is required to travel on Air Force One or Marine One during his time in office, but the First Family can and does travel on private planes owned by the Trump Organization. When the Secret Service accompanies the Trump family on their private planes, they reimburse the Trump Organization directly. (In fact, during the presidential campaign the Service paid TAG Air, Inc.—a Trump company—$1.6 million.)

2. Use of the Power of the Presidency To Promote Trump Brands

Donald Trump and his family can also enrich themselves by taking advantage of the unique status and exposure of the President of the United States to promote Trump family brands. Shortly after the inauguration Eric Trump noted that the Trump brand “is the hottest it has ever been,” while Ivanka Trump’s apparel line sales increased 346% during the first month of her father’s presidency. While some of this increase is “passive” and thus less problematic, there have been incidents that suggest efforts on the part of President Trump, his family, and members of his administration, to actively promote Trump brands. Indeed, the Trump Administration promoted the Trump brand by mentioning or referring to its private business’s on at least 35 different occasions during the President’s first year in office. (Interestingly, some recent reports (see herehere, and here) suggest that, despite these efforts, the value of the Trump Organization may in fact be decreasing, and the President’s personal wealth falling, perhaps due in part to the polarizing nature of his presidency.)

While distasteful, this brand-promotion activity also one of the less harmful ways in which the Trump Administration may seek to profit from the Presidency, as it does not involve significant distortions of U.S. policy. Nonetheless, the overt attempts to use the presidency as a marketing opportunity indicate a troubling underlying attitude. Examples of specific instances in which the Trump family or members of the Trump Administration have taken active steps to use the prestige and influence of the presidency to promote the Trump brand include:

  • Melania Trump Jewelry: Within minutes of President Trump’s inauguration, the White House website was updated to include details on Melania Trump’s jewelry line at QVC. After criticism of this endorsement of her products, the site was updated to drop any mention of specific brands.
  • Nordstrom Tweet: After Nordstrom’s department stores dropped Ivanka Trump’s clothing line, President Trump attacked Nordstrom’s “unfair” treatment of his daughter. Shortly thereafter, White House senior advisor Kellyanne Conway explicitly endorsed the Ivanka Trump brand, saying from the White House briefing room, “I’m going to give a free commercial here: Go buy [Ivanka’s products] today, everybody.” This was a clear violation of a federal ethics regulation, codified at 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(c), which states that a federal employee “shall not use or permit the use of his Government position or title or any authority associated with his public office to endorse any product, service, or enterprise[.]”
  • Access and Influence at Trump Properties: President Trump has actively promoted that impression that staying at Trump properties—particularly at the Mar-a-Lago resort, where membership applications have soared, and Trump’s Bedminster Golf Club—comes with a front-row seat to the inner workings (and “excitement”) of the U.S. government. Presumably to capitalize on the reputation of Trump properties as uniquely situated to provide access to the president, the Mar-a-Lago resort has doubled its initiation fee to $200,000 following the election. Annual dues increased by $1,000, to $15,000, and tickets to the annual New Year’s Eve party were considerably higher than in previous years. A since-discontinued brochure promoting Bedminster as a wedding venue promises that if President Trump “is on-site for your big day, he will likely stop in & congratulate the happy couple.” Trump spent his August 2017 two-week “working vacation” at the Bedminster Club (which an administration official referred to as “the Summer White House”), where he signed billsmet with members of his administration, and hosted some of his most generous donors for dinner.
  • Advertisement for Mar-a-Lago on State Department Website: In April 2017, a U.S. State Department website called Share America–which is supposed to be a “platform for sharing compelling stories and images that spark discussion and debate on important topics like democracy, freedom of expression, innovation, entrepreneurship, education, and the role of civil society”–posted a feature on Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort. After widespread criticism from lawmakers and ethics experts–who pointed out that the post was also a clear violation of 5 C.F.R. § 2635.702(c)–the State Department removed the posting.
  • Ivanka Trump’s Clothing Line: The World Bank recently launched The Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative, which awards millions in financing to women entrepreneurs in emerging markets (including $50 million that President Trump recently committed to the project). Ivanka Trump’s clothing brand stands to gain from her involvement in the program, prompting Senator Ben Cardin to write letter to Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin objecting that it is inappropriate for Ivanka Trump to “serve as a public advocate for the fund” as long as “Ms. Trump continues to benefit financially from a brand that bears her name.”
  • Ivanka Trump’s Book: Both Voice of America (a government funded news agency) and the State Department promoted Ivanka Trump’s book, Women Who Work: Rewriting the Rules for Success. Voice of America published an Associated Press article review about the book and advertised the book on Twitter. The State Department’s Office of Global Women’s Issues retweeted Ms. Trump’s tweet promoting the book, but later deleted the tweet after criticism. (Ms. Trump herself has pledged not to draw publicity through any promotional tour or media appearances, and she has also pledged to donate the advance and profits from the book to charity.)
  • Golf Tee Markers: The Trump Organization ordered the production of tee markers for golf courses emblazoned with the Presidential seal. The seal’s use is typically reserved only for official government business and misuse of the seal is a criminal offense.
  • Trump 2020 Campaign: In June 2017, President Trump held his first re-election campaign fundraiser at the Trump Hotel in Washington, D.C. Ethics experts criticized the event as improperly mixing the president’s business interests with his political interests, since the campaign event also serves as a promotional event for the hotel. The Trump campaign sent a tweet to supporters describing the event venue as a “beautiful hotel” and “BIG LEAGUE.” This was not an isolated event: In his first year in office, the president’s 2020 campaign—headquartered in Trump Tower in Manhattan—spent more than $543,000 at Trump-owned properties.
  • Republican Re-Election Events: The Republican National Committee (RNC), numerous congressional campaigns, the Republican Governors Association, and state parties have spent millions at Trump owned businesses in re-election efforts and fundraisers. For example, in March 2018 alone, the RNC spent $271,000at two Trump properties, equivalent to 86% of its expenditures for its venue and catering. (Compare this value to the mere $3,000 one of the properties received from the RNC for catering in December of last year.) (See here for an earlier breakdown of campaign money spent at Trump properties by GOP representatives.) The also spent  over $122,000 at the Trump International Hotel for a fundraiser in June 2017 (at a rate of $35,000-a-person), and the Republican Governors Association spent over $400,000 on a “Corporate Policy Summit” at Trump National Doral in Miami. The RNC is also paying $37,541 per month in rent to Trump Tower, and Republican campaigns and committees have spent over $42,000 just at the steakhouse inside the Trump International Hotel in Washington. (While sitting Presidents often host fundraisers for re-election campaigns, it is troubling when they directly profit from these events.)

3. U.S. Government Regulatory and Policy Decisions that Benefit the Business Interests of the Trump Family and Senior Advisors

Federal government decisions—on regulation, law, enforcement, and discretionary spending—may be influenced or manipulated in ways that benefit the private commercial interests of the Trump Organization or other businesses closely tied to President Trump, his family, or his senior advisors. This is a much more serious problem, as it involves not only enrichment of the Trump family and associates at taxpayer expense, but also potential distortions of U.S. policy.

The extent of the Trump Organization’s business interests makes it impossible to summarize all of the potential conflicts of interest that might arise. For example, the Trump Organization has been involved in labor disputes; Trump businesses regularly apply for visas for foreign workers; and Trump businesses are subject to countless federal safety and environmental regulations. (See here for an in-depth analysis of many of these potential conflicts.) As head of the executive branch, President Trump might have influence over numerous decisions that affect the Trump Organization’s business interests. While the potential conflicts of interest are too extensive—and in most cases likely too indirect—to enumerate, here are a few examples of more specific reports that raise concerns about how the financial interests of the President and his advisors may distort regulatory or policy decisions:

  • HUD subsidies: The Trump Organization owns properties that may be eligible for grants and subsidies from the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Although Trump’s proposed 2019 budget seeks to cut HUD grants and subsidies overall, his proposed budget notably would leave in place a federal housing subsidy paid directly to private landlords—a program from which Trump directly earns millions of dollars in profits. In fact, HUD has paid the partnership that owns Starret City (of which President Trump is part owner) more than $490 million in rent subsidies between May 2013 and June 2017, with nearly $39 million of that figure coming in since the President took office. Furthermore, President Trump nominated Lynne Patton, an event planner and longtime Trump family loyalist with no experience in housing or housing policy, to head HUD’s Region II, which includes New York and New Jersey. In her new position, Patton has the authority to “disburse billions of dollars in federal housing funds to the states in which the President’s company owns the most property.”
  • Dakota Access Pipeline (DAPL): In his first week in office, President Trump reversed a decision from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers—which had announced it would not issue permits for building the controversial Dakota Access Pipeline—and directed the Corps to “review and approve [the construction] in an expedited manner.” President Trump’s filings with the Federal Election Commission in June 2015 and May 2016 indicate that he owned stock in Energy Transfer Partners, the company building the $3.7 billion pipeline. While the President has asserted that he sold his stock in the company in June 2016, resolving the possible conflict of interest, he has not provided any concrete, independently verifiable evidence for that claim.
  • Clean Water Act Rollback: In February 2017, the Trump administration issued Executive Order 13778, which directed the EPA to review and either rescind or revise the regulations pertaining to the scope and coverage of the Clean Water Act. In January 2018, the EPA formally suspended implementation of the Obama-era rule (which extended Clean Water Act protections from pollution to bodies of water including wetlands and half of the streams in America) for two years, and the EPA and US Army Corp of Engineers plans to release its own proposed regulation later this year. Though the proposed repeal would affect many constituencies (the waters that stand to lose protection contribute to the drinking water supply for one in three Americans), it is strongly supported by golf-course owners (among others); the Trump Organization owns numerous golf courses, and therefore stands to gain from the proposed repeal.
  • General Services Administration Lease: The Trump Organization leased the building that is now the Trump International Hotel in Washington D.C. from the Federal Government’s General Services Administration (GSA). The building is also known as the Old Post Office. The lease agreement explicitly states that “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 purpose of this clause seems to be avoiding the conflict of interest that would arise if an elected federal official were, in effect, on both sides of the transaction (as both landlord and tenant). In March 2017, the GSA decided that President Trump—who has the authority to appoint and potentially remove the head of the GSA—is in full compliance with the lease agreement as long as he does not receive profits from the hotel while he serves as President. The GSA’s decision was roundly criticized by most experts as an implausible reading of the contract. In July 2017, Democratic members of the House Transportation and Infrastructure Subcommittee grilled acting GSA administrator Tim Horne about the legality of the lease and sought to bring attention to a report prepared for Representative Peter A. DeFazio, which asserts, among other things, that President Trump claimed in a financial disclosure to have earned $20 million in profits from Trump Old Post Office LLC after his inauguration.
  • Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner’s Advisory Roles: Ivanka Trump serves as an assistantto her father, while Ms. Trump’s husband Jared Kushner serves as senior advisor to the president. Since Ms. Trump is not being paid a salary and was not sworn in, she is not an official government employee (although she maintains a West Wing office, security clearance, and White House communications equipment). Although Ms. Trump stepped down from her management and operations role at the Trump Organization, she continues to receive fixed payments (approximately $1.5 million a year) from the Organization and profits from her fashion brand and the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. Similarly, although Mr. Kushner turned over his family’s real estate empire to family members, he still remains a beneficiary of his businesses through a series of trusts. Neither Ms. Trump nor Mr. Kushner placed their assets in a blind trust, which means that their financial interests could influence their counsel to President Trump.
  • Infrastructure Plan: To oversee a council at the helm of the $1 trillion infrastructure plan that President Trump proposed early in his presidency, he selected Steven Roth and Richard LeFrack, billionaire real-estate developers and former business partners of the President. The Trump Organization is currently invested in Mr. Roth’s real estate development company, Vornado Realty Trust, and receives $22.7 million annually from an ownership stake in two Vornado buildings. Not only has Roth entered bids to build new buildings for the Labor Department and the FBI, but, should the infrastructure plan be enacted, he will be in a position to influence billions of dollars in government spending in ways that benefit his company—and thus also directly benefit the Trump Organization. As of August 17, 2017, however, President Trump abandoned plans for the Council on Infrastructure.
  • Deutsche Bank Investigation: The Department of Justice and Special Counsel Robert Mueller are investigating Deutche Bank’s connection to a Russian money laundering scheme. Justice Department officials appointed by President Trump, including Attorney General Jeff Sessions, are overseeing the DOJ’s investigation. Deutsche Bank has lent President Trump billions of dollars, and he currently still owes the Bank about $340 million—a potentially serious conflict of interest. Furthermore, Jared Kushner reportedly accepted a $285 million loan from Deutsche Bank a month before the 2016 election as part of a refinancing package for a property in Manhattan. More recently, the Labor Department granted Deutsche Bank a waiver from the punishments it would have otherwise received after criminal convictions, thus allowing the bank to continue managing pension funds and individual retirement accounts for another three years. As defenders of the administration have pointed out, such waivers are not unprecedented, or even unusual. The Obama administration granted banks temporary waivers as well, and Deutsche Bank was not the only bank to receive a waiver in January 2018. Nonetheless, the apparent conflict of interest raises understandable concerns about whether the financial interests of President Trump and his son-in-law may have influenced this decision.
  • Florida Offshore Drilling Exemption: On January 4, 2018, the Trump Administration announced plans to lift the Obama Administration’s prohibitions on offshore drilling. Governors from many coastal states requested exemptions from the plan, but the only exemption that Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke granted was for Florida. Secretary Zinke’s justifications for the exemption, such as that “Florida is reliant on tourism as an economic driver,” also apply to other coastal states. Many skeptics have therefore suggested that political or personal financial considerations—in particular, the possible adverse impact that offshore drilling could have on Trump’s Mar-A-Lago resort in Palm Beach, Florida, influenced the administration’s decision.
  • Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac: John Paulson is the billionaire founder and manager of the hedge fund Paulson & Co. Mr. Paulson’s funds have a stake in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac—both of which were taken over by the federal government in 2008. Since President Trump’s election, shares of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac have increased substantially, and Mr. Paulson has called for the government to relinquish control of the companies. President Trump himself has invested $3­­-5 million in Paulson’s funds, and thus would stand to gain from a decision to end government control of the companies. Treasury Secretary Mnuchin—a former business partner of Mr. Paulson—has expressed interest in ending government control of the companies. Paulson & Co. and Blackstone Group LP (whose CEO is Steven Schwarzman, the chair of Trump’s Strategic and Policy Forum) hired investment bank Moelis, Inc. to prepare a proposal for ending government control of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac without legislation. The proposal was released in late May.
  • The Scope of the Proposed Travel Ban: In January 2017, President Trump signed a controversial executive order that barred entry into U.S. for individuals from seven Muslim-majority countries in the Middle East. Expertscourts, and the international community broadly denounced the effectiveness of a country-specific ban and the discriminatory purpose and intent of the executive order. Some critics went further, suggesting that the order itself may have been influenced by President Trump’s foreign business interests: The Trump Organization has no financial interests in any of the countries affected by the travel ban, but does have business interests in other predominantly Muslim countries that could have been included in the ban, such as Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Turkey, and Egypt. This is admittedly speculation, however, as there are alternative explanations for the selection of the targeted countries.
  • H-2B Visas: Despite President Trump’s campaign rhetoric about hiring American workers, his administration recently increased the permitted number of H-2B visas from 66,000 to 81,000 for this year. Days after the Department of Homeland Security announcement about the increase, Trump companies submitted requests to the Department of Labor for a total of 76 H-2B visas for guest workers. The administration has resisted pressure to increase quotas for other guest visa categories, including those for tech workers, for which Trump companies typically does not apply.
  • Benefits from the Tax Plan: The recently passed Republican tax-reform bill will substantially benefit President Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization. Perhaps most notably, the reduction of the “pass-through” tax has been referred to by some as the “Trump Loophole” since the President stands to benefit immensely from its reduction. (The exact benefit is difficult to calculate since the President has not released his tax returns.) The extent to which these tax proposals were influenced by the President’s personal interests—as opposed to a generic Republican policy objective of reducing taxes on very wealthy individuals, a class that happens to include President Trump—is not clear. But the fact that the President and his family stand to gain so much financially from the tax changes is cause for concern.
  • Interviewing U.S. Attorney Candidates: While the President has the authority and responsibility to nominate U.S. Attorneys, President Trump has taken a special interest in candidates for the positions in New York and Washington, D.C., and has taken the unprecedented step of personally interviewing candidates for U.S. Attorney in the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York and the District of Columbia. These districts cover much of the Trump Organization’s business dealings, including those involving the Trump International Hotel in Washington, which is currently at the center of a federal emoluments clause lawsuit. Moreover, these U.S. Attorneys may have to make important decisions in investigating any potential interference of Russia in the 2016 Election. As Preet Bharara, former U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York, noted, “It is neither normal nor advisable for Trump to personally interview candidates for US Attorney positions.”
  • Commerce Secretary Ross’s Shipping Interests: Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross shed millions of dollars in assets to avoid conflicts of interest. However, he maintained passive investments in Diamond S Shipping Group Inc., one of the world’s largest operators of shipping vessels, despite stepping down from positions within the company. Secretary Ross will be at the forefront of the U.S. trade negotiations and will help shape U.S. trade policy, which will directly impact the financial interests of the Diamond S Shipping Group. In addition, the so-called “Paradise Papers” leaks disclosed by the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists in early November 2017 revealed that Secretary Ross also has a stake in another shipping company, Navigator Holdings, that, since 2014, has received more than $68 million in revenue from a Russian energy company co-owned by Vladamir Putin’s son-in-law. Additionally, questions have been raised about whether Ross’s role in negotiating a trade deal with China to export more American liquefied natural gas will increase profits for Navigator. (Navigator ships liquefied petroleum gas, but production of the two products is significantly linked.) It remains unclear whether the trade deal would create direct, predictable benefits for Navigator, but there is nonetheless an unseemly appearance of a conflict of interest.
  • Carl Icahn: Until mid-August 2017, Billionaire investor Carl Icahn served as an unpaid special advisorto President Trump on regulatory issues. In that capacity, multiple reports indicate that Mr. Icahn sought to alter certain biofuels regulations in ways that would benefit an oil refinery in which Mr. Icahn held an 82% stake. The EPA Administrator, Agriculture Secretary, key Senators, and the President recently met to discuss these and other proposed changes to the Renewable Fuel Standard. According to media reports, Mr. Icahn also made substantial amounts of money through trades in assets the value of which would be affected by the regulatory reforms he was pushing. Democratic lawmakers have asked the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, and the Environmental Protection Agency to look into whether Mr. Icahn’s conduct amounted to insider trading or other illegal conduct. According to recent reports, Manhattan federal prosecutors are investigating Mr. Icahn’s actions as special advisor and have served him with a subpoena. In a separate incident that raised eyebrows, Icahn sold over $30 million of stock in Manitowoc Company – a crane manufacturer that uses imported steel—shortly before President Trump announced new tariffs on foreign steel and aluminum imports in March 2018. Icahn had not traded his stock in the company for more than three years; after Trump’s announcement, the trading price of the company fell by more than 6%, leading some to suspect Trump tipped off his former advisor prior to the formal announcement.
  • Rupert Murdoch’s 21st Century Fox: Media mogul Rupert Murdoch is a close confidant and advisor to President Trump. Mr. Murdoch has two important interests that President Trump could influence. First, President Trump could influence the proposed merger between AT&T and Time Warner, as he promised to on the campaign trail, stressing that it was, “a deal we will not approve in my administration.” Mr. Murdoch has a vested interest in scuttling the deal, as the merger would create a powerful rival to Mr. Murdoch’s company, 21st Century Fox. On November 20, 2017, the Justice Department filed suit to stop the merger. There have also been unconfirmed reports (see here and here) that in negotiations earlier in the month the Justice Department asked AT&T to sell Turner Broadcasting, a group of channels including CNN, in order to avoid the antitrust suit and that Mr. Murdoch had offered to buy CNN. However, no clear picture has emerged to substantiate these claims. Aside from the merger, the Justice Department is currently investigating Fox News for financial settlements related to sexual harassment lawsuits brought by female employees. The investigation will be overseen by Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who in turn reports to President Trump.
  • Kenneth Allen nomination: In September 2017, President Trump nominated Kenneth E. Allen, a former executive at the coal company Armstrong Energy to serve on the nine-member board of the Tennessee Valley Authority (TVA), which provides power to nine million consumers across seven Southeastern states. TVA has been and continues to be a longtime customer of Armstrong Energy, and Allen is still receiving payments from Armstrong on the basis of the amount of coal mined and sold from various Armstrong-owned properties. Allen was confirmed by the Senate on December 21, 2017.
  • Kirstjen Nielsen nomination: In October 2017, President Trump nominated Kirstjen Nielsen, then White House Deputy Chief of Staff, as head of the Department of Homeland Security. She was confirmed by the Senate on December 5, 2017. Thad Bingel of Command Group, a security consulting and lobbying firm, helped advise Ms. Nielsen through the confirmation process for free. This is a departure from the norm of government staffers, rather than private lobbyists, guiding nominees on the route to confirmation. The Command Group, a lobbying and consulting agency, owns another company that does government contracting work. This connection sparks conflict of interest concerns that Mr. Bingel’s free help might influence Ms. Nielsen to send his company future DHS contracts.
  • Jared Kushner and the Cadre Company: In Jared Kushner’s March 2017 financial disclosure to the Office of Government Ethics, he failed to disclose his financial stake in Cadre, a tech company he co-founded. Kushner and his lawyer claim that oversight was an “administrative error.” This error meant that instead of having to divest immediately from Cadre, Kushner made millions in profits as the company’s value rose after Kushner joined the White House. During this time, Kushner leveraged his White House position to meet with the CEOs and business leaders in many major technology companies.
  • Whitefish Energy Holdings: As part of the Hurricane Maria recovery effort, the Puerto Rico Electric Power Authority (Prepa) awarded a $300 million, no-bid contract to Whitefish Energy Holdings to help restore Puerto Rico’s power grid. When Hurricane Maria hit, the company had two full-time employees, but it hired more than 300 workers after being awarded the contract. Suspiciously, Whitefish Energy Holdings is located in Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke’s hometown in Montana. While Secretary Zinke maintains that he “had absolutely nothing to do” with the contract, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) has since expressed “significant concerns” with the deal. After a request from Puerto Rico Governor Ricardo Rosselló, Prepa cancelled Whitefish’s contract. However, under the terms of the cancellation, Whitefish continued working in Puerto Rico until November 30, 2017.
  • Brenda Fitzgerald’s Financial Investments: Dr. Brenda Fitzgerald resigned from her post as Director of the Center for Disease Control and Prevention after it was revealed that she purchased stock in tobacco and health care companies while serving as Director. (She made these purchases on August 8, 2017, and sold the shares on October 26, 2017.) Dr. Fitzgerald claims that the investments were made by her financial advisor without her knowledge, and that she asked to have the stock sold as soon as she learned of it.
  • Ben Carson’s Listening Tour: On June 28, 2017, Ben Carson, the Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), began a listening tour in Baltimore, Maryland. Dr. Carson’s son, Benjamin Carson Jr., played a significant role in organizing the tour, including using his personal business connections to invite local executives. Carson Jr. is the chairman of Agro Systems LLC and co-founder of Interprise Partners. His involvement occurred despite the fact that, according to HUD’s deputy general counsel for operations, two days before the tour she had “expressed [her] concern that this gave the appearance that the Secretary may be using his position for his son’s private gain.” This concern was shared by the regional HUD administrator, who noted that Carson Jr. “may be doing business with these entities or may be interested in doing business with these entities.” Secretary Carson has asked HUD’s Inspector General to investigate the issue.
  • NLRB’s Vacating Hy-Brand Decision: The National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) vacated its December decision to overrule an Obama-era decision (Browing-Ferris) that had made it easier for workers at staffing firms and business franchises to unionize. The Board vacated the decision because of the conflicts of interest of member William Emanuel. Mr. Emanuel, a Republican nominated to the NLRB by President Trump, is a former management-side attorney who represented Leadpoint, a party to the original Browing-Ferris decision that was overturned. Given that Mr. Emanuel was a deciding vote in a 3-2 decision that benefited a past client and interests of his former firm, the NLRB inspector general investigated and issued a memorandum finding “a serious and flagrant problem” with the Board’s decision, noting that Mr. Emanuel “should have been recused from participation.”
  • Ethics Waivers Issued to Former Industry Lobbyists: White House counsel Don McGahn has issued at least 37 ethics waivers that allow key Trump administration officials to participate in matters involving former private clients. The EPA seems to have the most conflicts of interest, with nearly half of Trump appointees having strong industry ties. Of the 59 EPA hires from the last year, at least three have gotten waivers allowing them to participate in matters involving former clients, despite signing ethics agreements precluding them from doing so. Additionally, Donald Trump nominated Peter Wright, a senior attorney at Dow Chemical, to head the EPA’s Office of Land and Emergency Management. If confirmed, Wright would be responsible for overseeing contaminated Superfund sites that Dow Chemical would be responsible for cleaning up.

4. Private and Foreign Interests Seeking To Influence the Trump Administration Through Dealings with Trump Businesses

Another significant concern is that individuals, private firms, and foreign governments may believe—rightly or wrongly—that they can curry favor with the Administration and increase their odds of favorable policy decisions by engaging in private business transactions with companies owned by or connected to President Trump—or, in the case of foreign governments, granting favorable regulatory treatment to Trump business operations in their countries. This is one of the most serious concerns related to the Trump family’s interest in profiting from the presidency, as it gives rise both to the appearance of corruption and the risk of actual corruption. The range of possible problems is too broad to summarize, but here are some examples of the leading sources of concern:

  • The Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.: A number of concerns center on the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., and in particular on whether foreign governments, or agents of foreign governments, may seek to curry favor with the Trump Administration by booking rooms and events at the hotel. (The hotel, which substantially increased its room rates after the election, earned the Trump Organization roughly $20 million between January 2016 and April 2017, almost $2 million in profits.) While the Trump Organization claims to have donated all profits from foreign government spending at Trump hotels to the United States Treasury, the Organization has not disclosed the amount or how it was calculated, thus leaving us to take the President at his word. This is particularly troubling since the Organization itself previously noted that it would be “impractical” to “fully and completely” identify all foreign guests staying at the Trump hotels. And a leaked email from September 2017 indicated that, despite public assurances to the contrary, President Trump is “definitely still involved” in the D.C. hotel’s business. Moreover, shortly after the election, the Hotel hosted a promotional event aimed specifically at foreign diplomats, which almost 100 diplomats attended. Since then, there have been numerous reports of private companies and foreign governments paying for rooms and events at the Trump International Hotel. As of May 4, 2018, the patrons at the hotel have included 59 political groups, 7 foreign governments, and 25 business interest events (industry or lobbying). Some illustrative examples include:
    • Bahrain: Shortly after President Trump’s election, the Embassy of Bahrain booked a reception at the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C., held on December 7, 2016.
    • Saudi Arabia: On January 23-26, 2017, a lobbying firm working on behalf of Saudi Arabia booked rooms at the hotel, which were paid for by the Saudi government. In fact, the firm has paid nearly $270,000 to the hotel, including $190,272 on lodging, $78,204 on catering, and $1,568 on parking.
    • Kuwait: The Embassy of Kuwait’s celebration of Kuwaiti independence on February 25, 2017 was originally scheduled to take place at the Four Seasons hotel, but was moved to the Trump hotel. According to anonymous sources, the location changed because members of the Trump Organization pressured the Kuwaiti ambassador to move the event. The ambassador, however, has denied these reports. If the allegation is true, it suggests direct efforts by the Trump Organization to leverage the president’s position to steer foreign government business to the Trump hotel. (Nonetheless, the Embassy returned to host its National Day celebration at the Trump Hotel for the second year in a row on February 26, 2018.)
    • Turkey: The American Turkish Council and the Turkey-U.S. Business Council (TAIK)—an arm of the Turkish government—held their annual conference in May 2017 at the Trump hotel. Previous conferences have cost around $400,000, with about one-third of that going to the venue. (Also of note: TAIK is headed by Ekim Alptekin, who founded Inovo BV, the consulting company that paid former national security advisor Michael Flynn $530,000 for lobbying work.)
    • Malaysia: On September 11, 2017, Malaysian Prime Minister Najib Razak visited the Trump International Hotel prior to a meeting with the President at the White House the following day. While Hotel staffers and Malaysian officials declined to say whether the Prime Minister and other officials stayed at the hotel, the visit brought at least 24 hours of activity and sales to the hotel. For instance, a dozen members of the Prime Minister’s entourage could be seen relaxing in a lounge area reserved for hotel guests during lunchtime. Further, the Prime Minister was seen leaving the hotel for dinner and returning later that night. Based on confirmed spending totals of other groups that have made base at the hotel, events of this scale usually result in hundreds of thousands of dollars in revenue for the Trump Organization.
    • Philippines: The Philippines has booked the Trump International Hotel for its Independence Day celebration in June 2018.
  • Events at Other Trump Properties: Similar concerns have been raised with respect to other Trump properties, where domestic or foreign interests may seek to curry favor with the president by booking space for events. For example, The National Confectioners Association, which represents large candy companies, is hosting several large meetings at the Trump National Doral Resort and other Trump properties. While these bookings were also made before President Trump was elected, it is nonetheless the case that a lobbying group is paying the Trump Organization while it is also advocating for changes in government policy. And in Canada, shortly after Trump’s election, the American Chamber of Commerce in Canada moved a planned meeting from the home of a diplomatic official to the newly-opened Trump International Hotel & Tower in Vancouver. The Chamber only paid $1,900 to rent the space for the event and asserted that the decision to move the event was due to a water leak at the original site, rather than any desire to influence the Trump Administration. While the explanation is plausible, events like this nonetheless contribute at least to the perception of an attempt to curry favor. Similarly, GEO Group—the country’s biggest private prison company—held its annual leadership conference at Trump National Doral in Miami. The company has had billions of dollars of contracts (including the Trump Administration’s first contract for an immigration detention center) with the government and donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Trump campaign. In 2017 alone, over 60 trade groups, companies, foreign governments, interest groups, and political candidates stayed or hosted events at Trump properties, and Trump properties made $1.2 million dollars from political groups in 2017. (Before Donald Trump got involved in politics, the annual spending by these groups at Trump properties did not exceed $100,000 in any year since at least 2002; approximately $1 million of the $1.4 million that politicos have spent at the Mar-a-Lago club since 2003 was spent after President Trump announced his presidential bid in 2015.)
  • Renting and Purchasing Trump Properties: Dozens of companies pay more than $175 million annually to the Trump Organization for rent in Trump buildings. These include companies that lobby the federal government such as JPMorgan Chase Bank, Duane Reade, and Nike; known foreign governments such as the Bank of India and Industrial & Commercial Bank of China; and organizations under federal investigation such as Verizon, Wells Fargo, and Morgan Stanley. Each of these companies or foreign governments pays money directly to the Trump Organization in the form of rent. For example, the Bank of China, which is owned largely by the Chinese government and remains the largest commercial tenant in Trump Tower, pays $1,900,000 in rent and will likely be renegotiating its lease with the Trump Organization over the coming years. And in February 2017, Chen Xiaoyan (who also goes by Angela Chen), the founder and managing director of a consulting and lobbying firm that helps clients secure access to senior public and private decision-makers in the People’s Republic of China, purchased a penthouse apartment in Trump Tower in New York for $15.8 million. In January 2018, the government of Qatar bought an apartment in one of President Trump’s New York towers for $6.5 million. As of June 2018, Qatar owned four units in the building for which it has paid a total of $16.5 million.
  • Trump Development Projects Abroad: The Trump Organization has numerous hotel, resort, and other projects in a wide range of countries, and the profitability of these projects are often affected by local government policy. There is therefore a concern that these governments legal and regulatory treatment of Trump-affiliated projects may be influenced by a desire to curry favor with the Trump Organization, or that such favorable treatment (or the implicit threat of unfavorable treatment) might influence U.S. policy toward these countries. Some examples of this concern include:
    • Indonesia: The Trump Organization is currently developing a luxury resort on the Indonesian island of Bali. The Bali local government provided public land for the project, granted numerous licenses and permits, and is planning to build (at government expense) a toll road extension that will substantially shorten the drive from the airport to the Trump resort–a decision that has raised concerns that the government may be deliberately undertaking an infrastructure project to curry favor with the U.S. president. The Trump Organization is also hoping to build a theme park next door to the planned resort. Its Indonesian partner, the MNC Group, said on May 15, 2018, that it had struck a deal with a Chinese state-owned construction company, Metallurgical Corporation of China, to build the park. The theme park will be funded in part by a $500 million dollar Chinese government loan. That Chinese loan in particular attracted widespread concern, because shortly after the deal was announced, President Trump indicated his intention to reverse U.S. sanctions against Chinese technology company ZTE, which had systematically violated rules against re-exporting US-made high technology components to sanctioned regimes, such as Iran and North Korea. More than 60 House Democrats are calling for an ethics investigation over the “extremely short time frame” between the Chinese loan to Trump’s Indonesia project and the president’s decision to lift sanctions on ZTE, and some commentators have characterized the sequence of events as evidence of straightforward quid pro quo bribery.
    • India: In February 2018, Donald Trump Jr. made a week-long visit to India to sell the Trump Organization’s luxury high-rise condos. India is the largest market for the Trump Organization, with five projects including residential towers in Pune, Mumbai, Gurgaon, and Kolkata. During this trip, promotions stated: “Book your Trump Towers’ residence before Feb. 22 and join Mr. Donald Trump Jr. for a ‘conversation and dinner’.” $15 million of real estate in the towers in Gurgaon was sold on the day that this offer appeared in the newspapers. In addition, the Trump Organization has partnered with individuals with close ties to corrupt Indian politicians as well as with one politician personally. On February 23, Trump Jr. also spoke at a business-leaders’ summit in New Delhi. Although he asserted that he was speaking as a businessman, not a representative of his father’s administration, others who attended the summit did not understand his remarks that way. According to V. Sunil, a managing director of a company that builds malls and cinema complexes, “[t]hough he claims that it’s not an official speech, we take it as an official statement…. He speaks to his father more than anyone here.”
    • Panama: The Trump Organization developed a luxury hotel in Panama City, and the Panamanian government has stepped in to aid the project in various ways, including government-funded repair of privately-owned sewage and drainage systems, use of the hotel for various government functions, and favorable permitting and tax decisions–decisions that, while not illegal or necessarily improper, raise significant concerns about conflicts of interest. There’s been some more recent drama at this property, as the building’s majority owner, Orestes Fintiklis, tried to fire the Trump Organization for mismanaging the hotel’s finances, but the Trump Organization refused to leave, instigating a standoff in which the police were called; the Panamanian government is currently investigating whether there was “punishable conduct” by the Trump Organization. In March 2018, lawyers representing the Trump Organization sent a letter directly to Panamanian President Juan Carlos Verela asking him to intercede, warning that the dispute could have “repercussions” for Panama.
    • Turkey: The Turkish conglomerate Dogan Holding was instrumental in developing the Trump Towers Istanbul, and continues to pay millions to the Trump Organization. The Erdogan government, however, has previously imposed a $2.5 billion tax fine on Dogan Holding, and could put further pressure on the company in the future. According to some reports, this is a deliberate strategy to pressure the Trump Administration. According to a Newsweek report, President Erdogan “told associates he believes he must keep pressure on Trump’s business partner [in Turkey] to essentially blackmail the president.”
    • United Arab Emirates: DAMAC Properties, a partner of the Trump Organization at its Trump World Golf Club Dubai, awarded the Middle East Subsidiary of China State Construction Engineering Corporation a $32 million contract to build a six-lane road as part of the residential piece of the golf club project called Akoya Oxygen. The companies’ news releases do not detail the exact timing of the contract, except to note that it was sometime in the first two months of 2017, which is around the time President Trump was inaugurated. The Trump Organization has said that the residential project and golf course are “totally unrelated,” despite marketing materials showing them to be intertwined.
    • Taiwan: On December 2, 2016, President Trump broke with nearly four decades of presidential precedent and communicated with the President of Taiwan, Tsai Ing-wen. (Since 1979, the United States has not officially recognized Taiwan.) In the days after the call, news broke that the Trump Organization was considering expanding to Taiwan. While the Trump Organization denied any such plans, the Mayor of Taoyuan—the city where the Organization supposedly wants to build—confirmed a September 8, 2016 visit from a representative of the Trump Organization to talk about expansion.
    • Chinese Trademarks: Although President Trump’s phone call with the President of Taiwan caused tension in the U.S.-China relationship, in February 2017 President Trump reaffirmed the U.S. commitment to the so-called “One China Policy.” Within a week of this announcement, the Chinese government granted the Trump Organization long-coveted Chinese trademarks for the “Trump” brand. As of June 2017, the New York Times reported that President Trump had 123 trademarks registered and provisionally approved (meaning they will be approved within three months if there are no objections) in China. While there is no direct evidence of a quid pro quo, and some commentators have suggested alternative explanations for the Chinese government’s decision, a number of factors—the suspicious timing, the unusual speed with which the trademarks were granted, and the mere fact that a foreign government conferred on the President’s business a benefit worth millions of dollars—together raise serious concerns. Similarly, Ivanka Trump’s company has over 40 trademark applications pending in China. On April 6, Ms. Trump—who remains an important adviser to her father on China related issues—dined with Chinese President Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago. That same day China granted her company three provisional trademarks (which had been filed with the Chinese authorities before President Trump was elected president). On May 21, 2018, China approved seven more of Ivanka Trump’s trademarks; the close proximity of this announcement to President Trump’s surprise declaration that his administration would lift sanctions on Chinese telecommunications company ZTE (which, as noted above, has been sanctioned by the US for illegally transferring US high-technology components to sanctioned regimes) has raised concerns that China’s favorable decision on Ivanka Trump’s trademarks was used as a way to influence President Trump’s position on ZTE.
  • Membership in Trump Golf Clubs: Among the members of Trump golf clubs (who pay initiation fees that can exceed $100,000), there are at least 50 executives whose companies hold federal contracts, and 21 lobbyists and trade group officials. While many of these memberships may pre-date Trump’s election, it nonetheless remains the case that individuals with a vested influence in influencing U.S. government are paying substantial sums to businesses controlled by the President’s family, and from which the President directly benefits. Indeed, according to media reports, club members use the access to President that membership affords in order to “influence the President on policy[.]”
  • Guo Wengui Deportation: The Chinese government urged President Trump to return Guo Wengui, a Chinese billionaire who fled China and has an application for asylum pending in the United States. Chinese officials accuse Guo of crimes including bribery, kidnapping, and rape. In October 2017, after receiving a request from the Chinese government hand-delivered by casino tycoon Steve Wynn (who himself depends on Chinese government approvals to operate his lucrative casinos in Macau), President Trump initially agreed that “[w]e need to get this criminal out of the country.” However, the President changed his mind after his aides informed him that Guo was a member of Mar-a-Lago. Setting aside a discussion of whether the United States should comply with China’s request, it is troubling that the President seems to be making decisions that have significant implications for the diplomatic relationship between the United States and China based at least in part on a personal profit motive.
  • Real Estate Sales to Secretive Buyers: In the first major divestiture of a Trump property since the election, the Trump Organization is selling Le Chateau des Palmiers—a five acre beachfront estate on the Caribbean island of St. Martin. President Trump bought the property in 2013 for an undisclosed amount, although the asking price at the time was $19.7 million. The property was initially listed for $28 million, although the price is officially listed as “price on application.” Given that any transaction would be a private property transaction, the Trump Organization would not need to reveal the identity of the buyer. This raises concerns that a buyer could overpay to curry favor with the Trump Administration and the President. (In August 2017, though, the asking price was reduced to $16.9 million.) More generally, in 2017, Trump Organization companies sold more than $35 million in real estate, to mostly secretive shell companies that obscure the identities of the buyers. President Trump’s real estate companies began adopting this trend of obscuring the identities of buyers around the time he won the Republican nomination. Two years before the nomination, only 4% of buyers of Trump real estate used this tactic; a year after the nomination, the number percentage of Trump real estate purchasers who hid their identity through anonymous shell companies was up to about 70%, a number that has held steady through President Trump’s first year in office.
  • Jared Kushner’s Debts, Financial Dealings, and Foreign Contacts: As discussed above, Jared Kushner serves as a senior advisor to President Trump, and although Kushner has formally resigned his role as CEO of Kushner Companies, he not completely divested. He sold most of his ownership stake in the company to his family members, a move which many ethics experts considered inadequate, and reportedly retains a “vast majority of his interest in Kushner Companies,” including real estate holdings and other investments worth about $761 million. In addition, although he agreed to recuse himself from government matters related to his financial interests, it appears as though this recusal was limited. Over the past year, Mr. Kushner’s debts have grown substantially, and these debts directly implicate Mr. Kushner’s role in government and create a potential national security risk. In fact, officials in the United Arab Emirates, China, Israel, and Mexico have already discussed how to manipulate Mr. Kushner because of “his complex business arrangements, financial difficulties and lack of foreign policy experience.” (One story asserts that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, referred to Kushner as being “in his pocket” after the two met during Kushner’s to Riyadh.) These risk are so pressing that White House Chief of Staff John Kelly downgraded Mr. Kushner’s security clearance and Mr. Kushner is being investigated by Special Counsel Mueller for several international contacts he had related to his debt. Mr. Kushner was eventually granted a permanent security clearance in May 2018, but many remain concerned that Mr. Kushner’s debts and complex financial arrangement could compromise his official role in a plethora of ways. For example:
    • Kushner’s Failed Transaction with the Chinese: In March 2017, news outlets reported that a Chinese company, Anbang Insurance Group, planned a $4 billion transaction involving a property at 666 Fifth Avenue in Manhattan owned by Kushner Companies, and which is deeply in debt. If the deal had gone through, it would have netted the Kushner family firm approximately $400 million. However, within a few weeks of the initial reports, Anbang and the Kushner family ended talks about a possible deal. It is not clear how much public outcry over the potential conflict of interest issue may have played a role. (Since then, the Chinese Government has taken control of Anbang and are prosecuting the Group’s chairman for financial offenses.)
    • Kushner’s Failed Loan from Qatar: In 2015 and 2016, Jared Kushner negotiated with Qatari billionaire and former prime minister Hamad bin Jassim al-Thani (HBJ for short) regarding a possible $500 million investment in Mr. Kushner’s troubled property at 666 Fifth Avenue in New York City. However, HBJ pulled out when Mr. Kushner was unable to secure additional funding from Anbang in March 2017 (discussed above). In June 2017, President Trump sided against Qatar in the country’s diplomatic standoff with Saudi Arabia, the UAE, Egypt, and Bahrain, citing concerns about Qatar’s funding of terrorism. Since June, Qatar has been under blockade by its neighbors. President Trump’s statements about Qatar contradicted those of Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, who had called for an end to the embargo. The timing of the failed business deal between HBJ and Mr. Kushner has led some to speculate that President Trump’s stance toward Qatar is revenge, or perhaps an attempt to send a message of intimidation to other prospective foreign business partners. This speculation is fueled in part by the fact that, according to anonymous sources, Secretary Tillerson believed that the U.S. position on Qatar was being driven primarily by Kushner. (These interactions between Mr. Kushner and HBJ are also being investigated by Special Counsel Robert Mueller.)
    • Kushner’s Meeting with Russian Officials: In connection with the ongoing investigation into possible collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 election, the FBI and Special Counsel Robert Mueller are reportedly scrutinizing meetings in 2016 between Jared Kushner and two Russian officials, Ambassador Sergey Kislyak and Sergey Gorkov, the head of VEB (a Russian state-owned development bank) and a close associate of Vladamir Putin. The contents of those discussions are still unknown, and the parties have issued seemingly contradictory explanations. (Mr. Kushner, for example, asserted that he was discussing policy issues, while Mr. Gorkov asserted that in their meeting Mr. Kushner was acting in his private capacity as a representative of his business.) Some media reports have suggested that Mr. Kushner and Mr. Gorkov may have discussed the possibility that Mr. Gorkov’s bank might extend financing to the 666 Fifth Avenue property mentioned above, or other business ventures of the Kushner family, if the Trump Administration lifted the sanctions that the U.S. had imposed on Russia in response to Russia’s incursion into Ukraine. (Others, however, have questioned the plausibility of this speculation, given that the size of the loan required for the 666 Fifth Avenue property would be quite large relative to VEB’s assets.)
    • Kushner’s Loans from Apollo Global Management and Citigroup: In the spring of 2017, Kushner had multiple White House meetings with representatives of two financial institutions, Apollo Global Management and Citigroup. Shortly afterwards, both Apollo and Citigroup made substantial loans to Kushner Companies. Both lenders, as well as Kushner, dispute that the White House meetings had anything to do with the loans, but the Office of Government Ethics and White House Counsel’s Office are looking into the matter to determine if any laws or regulations were violated.
    • Kushner’s Financial Ties with Israel: Shortly before Kushner accompanied the President on his first diplomatic trip to Israel, the Kushner family real estate company received a $30 million investment from one of Israel’s largest financial institutions, Menora Mivtachim. This transaction helped increase new equity into ten Maryland apartment complexes controlled by Mr. Kushner’s family firm, in which he still has a stake. While these business deals do not appear to violate federal ethics laws, they raise concerns about whether Kushner Companies’ financial ties with Israeli financial firms could influence his diplomatic role in the region, or further undermine the perception of the United States as an independent “honest broker” in the Middle East.
    • Kushner’s Financial Ties With Japan: In 2017, Kushner Companies made a real estate deal for $103 million with a company whose controlling shareholder is the government of Japan. (However, the the company denies that it was seeking to gain political influence, a senior strategist at Okasan Securities in Tokyo claimed it was doubtful that the Japanese government had a role in the company’s investment.)
    • Kushner Family Influence-Peddling in China: At a May 2017 investor event in Beijing, Nicole Kushner Meyer—Jared Kushner’s sister—made a pitch soliciting $150 million for a Jersey City housing development at One Journal Square to over 100 Chinese investors. The pitch attracted criticism for two reasons. First, Ms. Meyer promoted the EB-5 visa, a program that allows a path to permanent residence for foreign investors who invest more than $500,000 in projects that create jobs in the US. (The brochure for the event included slogans such as, “Invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States.”) The EB-5 program long pre-dates President Trump’s election and has been supported by both Democrat and Republican officials in the past; while the program has been persuasively criticized, Ms. Meyer’s remarks do not necessarily raise specific concerns about leveraging the political influence into private gain. Second, however, Ms. Meyer’s remarks attracted additional criticism because she also stressed that the investment project “means a lot to me and my entire family,” and she made a point to highlight the important role of her brother in the White House. Indeed, Mr. Kushner previously oversaw the project until he left the company to be senior advisor to the President, and he remains the beneficiary of trusts that own his stakes in Kushner Companies. After the criticism, the Kushner Companies apologized “if that mention of [Jared Kushner] was in any way interpreted as an attempt to lure investors.” Apology notwithstanding, evidence of the use of Jared Kushner’s government connections to attract investment from China surfaced again in July 2017. Two companies, Qiaowai and the US Immigration Fund, which were working with Kushner Companies to find Chinese investors, used Mr. Kushner’s role as a selling point in promotions posted on social media service WeChat. The Qiaowai ad made a direct reference to the Kushner family’s promotion of the EB-5 visa program, explaining that the development was approved for EB-5 visas and that the tight relationship between Kushner Companies and Mr. Trump means that “in the Trump era, the EB-5 program is likely to receive support and be expanded.” The US Immigration Fund ad, aside from referring to Mr. Kushner as “the celebrity of the family” and “30-something Mr. Perfect” linked to a December 2016 Forbes cover emblazoned with a photo of him and the headline, “This guy got Trump elected.” After CNN reached out to Qiaowai and the US Immigration Fund, they took down their ads. Kushner Companies claimed that it was unaware of the promotions. Nonetheless, the Securities & Exchange Commission and the Brooklyn U.S. Attorney’s Office have opened an investigation into whether Kushner Companies had violated the law in its promotion of the visa program to Chinese investors.
  • Michael Cohen “consulting” payments: In October 2016, shortly before the election, President Trump’s personal attorney Michael Cohen formed a new company, Essential Consultants LLC. After the election, he advertised his closeness with the President to attract clients for his “consulting” services. Mr. Cohen’s clients included a firm with close ties to Russian oligarch Viktor Vekselberg (who in turn has close ties to the Putin regime, and who met with Mr. Cohen shortly before the inauguration to discuss US-Russian relations), Korea Aerospace Industries, AT&T, and Novartis. The business purpose of these payments is unclear, given that Mr. Cohen lacks expertise in any of the relevant policy areas—leading some to suspect that Mr. Cohen’s alleged “consulting” company was in fact a slush fund to be used for the benefit of President Trump. (This interpretation is buttressed by the fact that Mr. Cohen used Essential Consultants to funnel hush money to Stormy Daniels, the adult film star who claimed to have had an affair with President Trump.) More crudely, some have suggested that Mr. Cohen’s company was intended—and understood by many of its clients—simply as a means of paying cash bribes to President Trump himself, with Cohen acting as the “bag man.” (An alternative explanation is that Mr. Cohen misled these clients with respect to his own ability to offer access or insights into Trump Administration policymaking.)
  • State Public Pension Funds: Public pension funds in California, New York, Texas, Arizona, Montana, Michigan, and Missouri—with more than five million members—have millions of dollars invested in The CIM Group, a Los Angeles-based investment group that owns The Trump SoHo Hotel and Condominium. The CIM Group pays Trump International Hotels Management LLC 5.75% of Trump SoHo’s operating budget, resulting in millions of dollars in payments. Thus, these state pensions are paying millions of dollars almost directly to the Trump Organization through the CIM Group. That arrangement will soon change, however, as CIM and the Trump Organization have agreed to end the Trump Organization’s role in managing the Trump Soho by the end of this year. (The deal comes on the heels of a ProPublica report that Manhattan D.A. Cyrus Vance dropped felony fraud charges against Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump for misleading buyers about the percentage of condos that had already been sold at the Trump Soho after Trump attorney Marc Kasowitz made a donation to Vance’s 2012 re-election campaign.)
  • Mississippi Hotel Tax Breaks: In June 2017, the Trump Organization announced a new mid-priced hotel chain, Scion hotel, and the first of these hotels was recently granted a tax break worth over $6 million from the Mississippi Development Authority. The hotel, The Scion at West End, will be located in Cleveland, Mississippi and built by Chawla Pointe LLC. The tax rebate, provided through the Mississippi Development Authority’s Tourism Tax Rebate program will subsidize an estimated third of the project, which is projected to cost $20 million. While the CEO of Chawla Pointe LLC emphasizes that the Trump Organization played no role in the rebate application, the break directly profits the Trump Organization at the expense of Mississippi taxpayers.