🥊 Did the Emoluments cases fail?
Seems like everyone thinks they did.
While Trump rakes in billions through gifts, grifts, and tricks, millions of Americans struggle to afford basic necessities. And voters are paying attention: 74% of battleground voters say corruption raises healthcare costs, and 65% say it drives up grocery prices. That makes corruption a salient political issue for Democrats. But polling also suggests that to capitalize on it, Democrats can’t just talk about corruption — they need to fight against it. We’ve got some ideas on how.
But first: Remember the outcry when foreign governments booked rooms at Trump’s D.C. hotel to curry favor with the president? Seems quaint now.
Back then, watchdog groups, state AGs, and members of Congress filed suit under the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses. (Quick refresher: the former bars federal officeholders from accepting benefits from foreign governments, while the latter prohibits the president from receiving additional compensation from the federal government or the states.) The litigation was ambitious, and the legal theories were untested. But before any court could reach the merits, Trump was booted from office. The remaining cases were dismissed as moot.
Fast forward four years: a consensus has seemingly formed that emoluments litigation failed. It’s perhaps why only one emoluments case has been filed during Trump’s second term, despite corruption that is orders of magnitude greater than during his first term.
But the consensus on emoluments is wrong. For one, despite the pretentiousness of the word “emoluments,” these cases provide a communications hook to talk about — and fight against — Trump’s corruption. But more than atmospherics, emoluments suits might offer a viable path to actually stop corruption.
In particular, there’s a lesson to be taken from CREW v. Trump, a 2017 case which challenged, among other things, payments Trump received from foreign governments at his D.C. hotel. Before that case was mooted, the plaintiffs — a hospitality entrepreneur and a restaurant-worker organization — secured two significant wins:
First, the Second Circuit held that the plaintiffs had standing to sue under the Emoluments Clause as “economic competitors” to Trump. “Every dollar of government patronage drawn to Trump establishments by the hope of currying favor with the President,” the opinion stated, “is a lost dollar of revenue that might otherwise have gone to Plaintiffs.”
Second, the Court rejected a slew of threshold findings by the district court, including that the case presented a nonjusticiable political question, that the plaintiffs fell outside the “zone of interests” protected by the Emoluments Clause, and that their claim wasn’t ripe.
Of course, not all emoluments decisions went that way. Rulings were all over the map. A case brought by D.C. and Maryland was stayed by the Fourth Circuit, only to be revived by the same court sitting en banc. And a case brought by members of Congress was allowed to proceed in D.C. District Court, only to be remanded for dismissal by the D.C. Circuit.
But that’s the point. Law on the Emoluments Clause was cut off prematurely as moot after the 2020 election. It isn’t settled, and because of that, there’s a real opportunity to go on offense against corruption.
THE PUNCH LIST
Going on offense requires a mindset shift. Right now, Trump corruption stories are too often viewed as 24-hour news blips to riff on during cable hits. Sometimes that’s fine. But not every instance of grift is a fleeting target to rail against — some are threads to pull. Here are some loose ones:
$600 Million in Digital Grift 💸. Foreign investors seeking influence over federal policy have boosted the value of digital assets owned by the President and his family, generating hundreds of millions of dollars in wealth with little public transparency.
A Qatari Jet ✈️. Trump’s acceptance of a Boeing 747-8 from Qatar raises perhaps the most obvious emoluments question imaginable: can a foreign government simply give the President a luxury jet?
Trump’s Cabinet Cashes In 💰. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick demanded South Korea invest billions of dollars in U.S. industry in exchange for tariff reductions. Now, an AI data center backed by Lutnick’s family is vying for a share of the investment dollars.
AI Chips for Abu Dhabi 🤖. In May 2025, the Trump administration approved a major agreement giving the UAE access to advanced American AI chips despite longstanding concerns about technology transfers to China. By total coincidence, UAE-linked investors had recently poured billions of dollars into the Trump family’s crypto empire.
FIFA Emoluments ⚽. With the World Cup underway, it’s a perfect time to ask why international soccer’s governing body pays rent for an office in Trump Tower that sits idle.
Saudi Arabia’s Favorite Golf Destination ⛳. For years, the Saudi sovereign wealth fund has lined Trump’s pockets by hosting LIV Golf tournaments at his clubs.
FIGHTING FIRE WITH FIRE
🥊 Miami vice. In May, private plaintiffs in Florida sued Trump under the Domestic Emoluments Clause, alleging that a land transfer from Florida to the President for his future library would provide illegal benefits. Why? Because Trump plans to turn the land into a hotel.
🥊 Open and
shutreopen. Former NJ AG Matt Platkin and his co-counsel represented 35 former federal judges who successfully petitioned a federal judge to reopen Trump’s $10 billion case against the IRS. In addition to the notorious slush fund, that settlement prohibited the IRS from pursuing any open audits or launching new examinations into the past tax returns of Trump, his family, and the Trump Organization.
🥊 A corruption tax. As Trump tried giving his family that get-out-of-tax-jail free card, NY State Assemblyman Alex Bores proposed taxing payouts from the Trump slush fund at 100%. The idea went viral and was embraced by Gov. Gavin Newsom and Gov. Kathy Hochul.
MORE CASH THAN A CAVA BAG
The Miami plaintiffs suing Trump under the Domestic Emoluments Clause laid out the scale of Trump’s library windfall:
“With its waterfront views and central location in bustling Downtown Miami, [the land] would likely sell for over $300 million on the open market … But President Trump paid nothing for it.”
Upper Cut is a collaboration between Salt River Valley Project and Evergreen Legal — two organizations that believe punching back is the policy playbook this moment demands. It’s how we fight a rigged system, make courage contagious, and deliver for people against the leaders holding them down.