Trump's Emoluments Violations Persist Unchecked Due to Judicial Abdication and Congressional Inaction
Source: Dahlia Lithwick, Mark Joseph Stern. "It was one of the biggest scandals of the first Trump term and it’s even worse now.." August 17, 2026. slate.com
The Gist
The authors argue that Trump is openly violating constitutional rules against presidents accepting gifts or profits from foreign/domestic sources through his crypto businesses and lavish gifts like a $400 million plane. They say this is happening because courts dodged ruling on the issue during his first term, and Congress has done nothing to create real enforcement mechanisms, so these once-respected constitutional norms have become essentially toothless.
Conclusion
Trump is flagrantly violating the Constitution's emoluments clauses through his crypto ventures, luxury gifts, and business dealings, and this is possible because courts and Congress have failed to enforce these historically self-enforced anti-corruption provisions, leaving them functionally meaningless without public pressure.
Premises
- The Constitution contains two clear emoluments clauses (foreign and domestic) designed to prevent presidential corruption and undue influence from foreign states or domestic entities.
- These clauses were historically observed through voluntary presidential compliance and consultation with Congress, not through judicial enforcement, because no formal enforcement mechanism exists in the Constitution.
- Trump's first-term emoluments lawsuits were dismissed by the Supreme Court in 2021 on procedural grounds (mootness due to leaving office), avoiding any substantive ruling on what violates the clauses.
- This judicial non-ruling signaled to Trump that there were no real legal consequences, emboldening him to engage in unprecedented grifts in his second term (World Liberty crypto platform, memecoins, a $400 million luxury plane) without even attempting to seek congressional approval as past presidents did.
- The Supreme Court has also weakened Congress's ability to investigate presidential emoluments violations, citing separation-of-powers concerns and executive privilege, which contradicts the Framers' intent to check executive corruption.
- Congress possesses the power to create enforcement mechanisms (as it did with the 1966 Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act) but has failed to act, despite recent proposals like Jamie Raskin's resolutions.
- The erosion of these anti-corruption provisions is part of a broader pattern of expanding, unchecked executive power enabled by Supreme Court rulings favoring presidential immunity and prerogative.
Assumptions
- Norm-based constitutional provisions without explicit enforcement mechanisms are just as legally binding and important as those with clear enforcement structures.
- The Framers' original intent regarding anti-corruption should guide current constitutional interpretation and enforcement priorities.
- Judicial and congressional inaction constitutes a meaningful failure of duty rather than a legitimate application of procedural or separation-of-powers principles.
- Public pressure can effectively compel Congress to act on issues it has otherwise ignored.
- Trump's business activities (crypto ventures, accepting a luxury plane) actually meet the legal definition of 'emoluments' as understood under DOJ guidance.