Skip to main content

Sign up for our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values. Direct to your inbox.

China has approved dozens of applications to register the Trump trademark, sparking renewed concerns over the deep conflicts of interests between the U.S. president and his business empire. (Photo: AP)

Trump’s China Trademarks Violate the Constitution

Dave Johnson

 by People's Action Blog

During the campaign Donald Trump pledged that “on day one” as president, he would label China a currency manipulator. Then he didn’t. Then China granted Trump’s businesses lucrative trademarks he has been seeking. Coincidence?

"On Day One"

On the campaign trail, Trump repeated again and again that if elected president he would label China a currency manipulator “on day one.” For example, in an August, 2016 speech in Tampa, he outlined a seven-point plan that included this promise:

I am going to instruct my Treasury Secretary to label China a currency manipulator… Any country that devalues their currency in order to take unfair advantage of the United States will face tariffs to stop the cheating.

China’s currency manipulation has often brought the “price” of their currency down, which means things made in China cost less in international markets than things made in the U.S. Of course, the U.S. has a Wall Street-favoring “strong dollar policy,” which doesn’t help. either.

If the Treasury Department declares that China is manipulating its currency, this opens the door that can eventually lead to the president imposing tariffs.

So far Trump has not directed his Treasury Secretary to label China as a currency manipulator, and his Treasury Secretary has not done so independently.

China Grants Trademarks

According to a Wednesday AP report, China has granted preliminary approval for 38 Trump trademarks that cover “everything from hotels and golf clubs to bodyguard and concierge services.”

The report notes that Trump filed for these trademarks at the same time that he was publicly campaigning that he would penalize China, (hint, hint, wink and a nod).

Trump’s lawyers in China applied for the marks in April 2016, as Trump railed against China at campaign rallies, accusing it of currency manipulation and stealing U.S. jobs. Critics maintain that Trump’s swelling portfolio of China trademarks raises the possibility of conflicts of interest.

Once again, in public Trump was threatening China, but in private his attorneys were asking China to grant lucrative trademarks to his businesses.

A Protection Racket?

A “protection racket” is when gangsters come into a business holding bricks and baseball bats and threaten that “it would be a shame if something happened to your store.” They offer “protection” from such things happening, “for a price.”

What Trump is doing with China has the appearance of corruption. It looks like Trump is operating a protection racket, on the one hand threatening the nation with presidential actions against them and on the other hand asking the nation to grant lucrative trademarks for his businesses.

China did, and Trump didn’t.

Whether this is a quid pro quo exchange or not, it gives the public the appearance that China might be granting Trump’s businesses these trademarks because Trump is president.

Violates "Emoluments Clause"

The “emoluments clause” of the Constitution, “no Person holding any Office .. shall … accept of any present, Emolument .. of any kind whatever, from a … foreign State.”

This clause, in Article I of the Constitution, stems from concern in the 1700s that foreign states might use gifts to curry favor with U.S. officials. The wording makes clear that a gift doesn’t need to be a bribe to violate the Constitution; accepting any kind of gift without permission is a violation.

China is a foreign state. It just is. An emolument is a “profit, salary, or fees from office or employment.” With this grant of trademarks Trump is receiving a profit. He just is. And Bob’s your uncle.

Whether or not Trump is actually demanding “protection money” from China, this all actually is a foreign government enriching our president. These trademarks are worth millions if not billions of dollars to Trump’s businesses.

Chuck Schumer tweeted about this:

So What?

What Trump is doing here is blatant. It goes far beyond the appearance of impropriety. It is an actual president actually receiving an actual profit from an actual foreign state. It just is. It’s just right there in front of us. It doesn’t matter if Trump was “shaking them down” to get the trademarks granted. It certainly looks that way, but it doesn’t matter, thanks to the “Emoluments clause” of our Constitution.

But so what? Who is going to do anything about it?

What we are seeing is a complete failure of our system to hold Trump accountable. Republicans in Congress continue to protect him. The Trump-appointed, Republican-approved Attorney General will protect him. Republican appointees to the judiciary will protect him. Our system has been taken over by a political party more interested in power than law and democracy and accountability.

The only thing that can stop this is for the public to increase the pressure with continuing rallies, marches, calls, letters, demonstrations, voter registration and voting. And demanding paper ballots and demanding that they all be counted in public like we used to do.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License.
Dave Johnson

Dave Johnson

Dave Johnson is a contributing blogger for the Campaign for America's Future.

We've had enough. The 1% own and operate the corporate media. They are doing everything they can to defend the status quo, squash dissent and protect the wealthy and the powerful. The Common Dreams media model is different. We cover the news that matters to the 99%. Our mission? To inform. To inspire. To ignite change for the common good. How? Nonprofit. Independent. Reader-supported. Free to read. Free to republish. Free to share. With no advertising. No paywalls. No selling of your data. Thousands of small donations fund our newsroom and allow us to continue publishing. Can you chip in? We can't do it without you. Thank you.

ACLU Demands 'Truly Systemic Overhaul' of US Civilian Harm Policies

"While a serious Defense Department focus on civilian harm is long overdue and welcome, it's unclear that this directive will be enough," says director of the legal group's National Security Project.

Jessica Corbett ·

'This Is Not Over': Alaska Supreme Court Rejects Youth Climate Case

"With the state continuing to undermine their health, safety, and futures," said the plaintiffs' lead counsel, "we will evaluate our next steps and will continue to fight for climate justice."

Jessica Corbett ·

Analysis Finds 'Staggering' Rise in Voter Suppression After GOP Restrictions in Georgia

"This is why we are fighting this new law in court," said one voting rights advocate.

Brett Wilkins ·

'Egregious': Pennsylvania Court Strikes Down Mail-In Voting Law

The ruling was stayed pending an appeal to the state's Supreme Court and as one voting advocate put it: "The fight's not over yet, folks."

Julia Conley ·

Big Win for Open Internet as Court Upholds California Net Neutrality Law

One legal advocate called the Ninth Circuit's opinion "a great decision and a major victory for internet users in California and nationwide."

Kenny Stancil ·

Support our work.

We are independent, non-profit, advertising-free and 100% reader supported.

Subscribe to our newsletter.

Quality journalism. Progressive values.
Direct to your inbox.

Subscribe to our Newsletter.

Common Dreams, Inc. Founded 1997. Registered 501(c3) Non-Profit | Privacy Policy
Common Dreams Logo