The Trump Administration’s re-engagement with U.S. foreign economic policy has reignited long-standing debates about the potential for conflicts of interest when a sitting president or their family maintains active control over substantial private business interests.

Introduction

A recent example is the Trump Organization’s groundbreaking of a $1.5 billion luxury golf resort in Vietnam, amid sensitive trade negotiations between the U.S. and the Vietnamese government.

The proximity in timing between Vietnam’s cooperation on trade and its approval of a massive Trump-branded development raises essential legal and ethical questions. Is this merely coincidence, or does it reflect a problematic entanglement between U.S. policy and private gain? More crucially, should such dealings be disclosed to the public under transparency or conflict-of-interest standards?

The Legal Framework: Conflict of Interest and Transparency Laws

1. The Emoluments Clause

The U.S. Constitution prohibits federal officials, including the president, from receiving any “present, Emolument, Office, or Title” from foreign states without the consent of Congress. While courts have struggled to define the precise limits of this clause, a foreign government’s grant of favorable real estate terms or regulatory approvals to a sitting president’s company may fall within the scope of prohibited emoluments.

Although Donald Trump famously refused to divest from his businesses during his first presidency—opting instead to place them in a revocable trust managed by his sons—the core issue remains: when a foreign government stands to benefit from favorable U.S. trade terms, and simultaneously facilitates a Trump business venture, a perceived quid pro quo emerges.

2. Federal Ethics Laws

Unlike other executive branch officials, the president and vice president are technically exempt from most federal conflict-of-interest statutes. However, this exemption does not eliminate the legal and reputational risks involved in appearing to leverage public office for private benefit.

Congress has previously introduced legislation such as the Presidential Conflicts of Interest Act, which would require presidents to divest from businesses that pose potential conflicts. Such measures have stalled, but renewed interest is likely given recent developments.

3. FOIA and Transparency

While private business transactions are not automatically subject to Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) requests, any communication or coordination between government officials and the Trump Organization regarding these deals could fall within the scope of disclosure laws. Furthermore, if foreign nations lobby the U.S. government while concurrently engaging with Trump-owned companies, that may trigger disclosure requirements under the Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA).

Ethical and Policy Considerations

A Chilling Effect on U.S. Credibility

When a president’s personal business appears intertwined with foreign policy, it undermines trust in American governance. Trade partners may prioritize deals that benefit the president over national interests, leading to distortions in U.S. foreign policy. Other nations may perceive (or exploit) these dynamics, potentially treating Trump-branded business ventures as informal avenues of diplomacy or influence.

Precedent for Future Officeholders

The Vietnam golf resort case sets a dangerous precedent. If allowed to proceed without transparency or oversight, it could normalize a structure where the presidency becomes a marketing arm for family enterprises—degrading the wall between public duty and private profit.

Calls for Public Disclosure

Given Trump’s current role as both head of state and de facto leader of a multinational business conglomerate, there is a strong argument that any major foreign transactions involving his company should be subject to mandatory public disclosure. This could take the form of:

• An independent ethics panel with authority to review and publish findings;
• Congressional oversight of international business developments tied to executive officials;
• Statutory expansion of the federal financial disclosure requirements.

Conclusion

While the Trump Organization’s new venture in Vietnam may technically skirt legal boundaries, the broader ethical and constitutional implications cannot be ignored. The American public and its legal community, must demand mechanisms that prevent any future administration from walking the same fine line between diplomacy and deal-making. At minimum, deals of this nature must be made public, scrutinized through the lens of potential conflicts, and subject to the same accountability that underpins a functioning democracy.