Scrutinizing White House Activities that Make Profits (SWAMP) Act would ban taxpayer funding from multilateral summits or meetings at Trump properties
Should the president be able to host summits with world leaders at a location he owns, potentially earning him money?
Context
Upon ascending to the presidency, Donald Trump refused to divest himself from his business interests during his tenure in office. This means he still earns money from the Trump Organization’s profits, including golf courses, hotels, and resorts.
One such resort is in Doral, Florida, just outside Miami. In mid-October, Trump announced plans to host the next G-7 summit there in June 2020, featuring leaders of seven of the nation’s most advanced economies. The location traditionally alternates annually among member countries, with the national leader selecting the exact location.
Trump eventually backed off the plan in the face of bipartisan condemnation that the location was an unseemly choice, given that his company would receive payment at cost, at the very least. However, his public comments hinted at the possibility of hosting similar future summits or multilateral meetings at one of his properties regardless.
What the bill does
The Scrutinizing White House Activities that Make Profits (SWAMP) Act would ban the use of taxpayer dollars to fund any “multilateral or head of state meeting” at a Trump-owned property.
In practice, this wouldn’t technically prevent Trump from hosting such a meeting there anyway, although it would make it significantly less likely to occur. Taxpayers fund the Secret Service, for example, which would presumably be mandatory at any event featuring Trump.
It was introduced in the Senate on October 21 as bill number S. 2653, by Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-OR).
What supporters say
Supporters argue the bill prevents President Trump from potentially enriching himself and his organization at what are ostensibly intended to be neutral locations.
“Trump’s attempt to hold the G-7 at his own resort was corrupt. It was a violation of the Constitution. It was an abuse of power. And we must put an end to his self-dealing,” Sen. Merkley said in a press release.
“The fact that the President thinks that it is okay to write himself a check from taxpayer money and foreign governments shows the absolute depth of his corruption,” Sen. Merkley continued. “It’s time for Congress to step in and make it crystal clear: President Trump cannot profiteer off of his meetings with foreign leaders — not with the G-7, not ever.”
What opponents say
President Trump counters that his Doral property made sense logistically, and that he actually wouldn’t have been making money off the G-7 summit because he would have hosted it there for free.
“I thought I was doing something very good for our Country by using Trump National Doral, in Miami, for hosting the G-7 Leaders,” Trump wrote in a series of tweets. “It is big, grand, on hundreds of acres, next to MIAMI INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, has tremendous ballrooms & meeting rooms, and each delegation would have its own 50 to 70 unit building. Would set up better than other alternatives.”
“I announced that I would be willing to do it at NO PROFIT or, if legally permissible, at ZERO COST to the USA,” Trump continued. “But, as usual, the Hostile Media & their Democrat Partners went CRAZY!” Trump added that he only took his property out of consideration because of “both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility.”
Odds of passage
The bill has attracted two Democratic Senate cosponsors: Sens. Mazie Hirono (D-HI) and Ed Markey (D-MA). It awaits a potential vote in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Such legislation inspired by Trump is unlikely to pass the Republican-controlled Senate. Then again, Trump reversed himself on hosting the G-7 summit at his own resort largely because of opposition from congressional Republicans.
Other legislation titled the Trump’s Heist Undermines the G7 (THUG) Act, numbered S. 2654 in the Senate and H.R. 4744 in the House, would prevent a multilateral summit from being held at the Trump National Doral Miami specifically. But it would not prevent all Trump Organization properties from doing so, as the SWAMP Act would.
Only to Trump?
These bills are unusual in that they apply only to President Trump. Most Trump-inspired bills would have technically applied to any president, both Trump and all White House occupants from now on. Recent examples include bills requiring a president to release their tax returns, permanently archiving all of a president’s social media posts, or making it harder for a president to fire a special counsel who was investigating them.
Yet both the SWAMP Act and the THUG Act would apply solely to Trump, a very unusual specification in federal legislation.
This article was written by GovTrack Insider staff writer Jesse Rifkin.
Like our analyses? Want more? Support our work!
