Further, Donald Trump has specifically lobbied for his Turnberry resort in Scotland to host the tournament’s 2028 edition. This plan has set off heated debate between legal scholars on whether it would violate the emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution. This clause, known as the emoluments clause, bars federal officials — including, now, Trump — from receiving benefits from foreign or state governments without congressional approval.
Our Constitution’s emoluments clause was written by the framers of that document to protect us from just such an influence. This was all the more significant considering Great Britain’s overwhelming superiority at the time. In light of Trump’s past controversies surrounding this clause, ethics experts are raising alarms about the implications of the British government’s apparent efforts to facilitate this tournament.
Ciara Torres-Spelliscy, a fellow at the Brennan Center for Justice, puts her finger on that important point. No court in U.S. history has ruled on a violation of the emoluments clause. Concern arising from Trump’s past experience with being accused under this constitutional provision isn’t foundationally rooted in the present case.
US ethics experts agree that selecting Turnberry as the host for the 2028 tournament would go against the spirit of the emoluments clause. In fact, they say it might even really break that law. Jordan Libowitz, a notable expert in the field, stated, “If moving the tournament there would result in British government funds being spent at the course, it would likely violate the constitution’s prohibition on foreign emoluments.”
Democratic Congressman Jamie Raskin has taken action by sending Trump a letter demanding the return of $7.8 million that he allegedly accepted from foreign governments during his presidency. Raskin remarked that this sum is merely “a fraction” of what Trump may have accepted from foreign entities through various business ventures.
And the new British government does not appear to be shying away from solidifying those ties with Trump. They are apparently lobbying golf executives to make Turnberry an event site for the tournament. An unnamed source familiar with the British government’s strategy noted they are “doing everything it can to get close to Trump.”
Donald Trump has long hinted at hosting the Open at Turnberry. It’s something that he’s raised several times in his meetings with his UK counterpart, Keir Starmer. The two leaders had a telephone conversation last week about trade issues. They addressed significant geopolitical issues related to Ukraine, Iran, and Yemen.
According to public UK court documents, Trump regained control of the trust overseeing Turnberry this past April. He had previously withdrawn from any engagement in 2017. This amendment would further increase the confusion around the emoluments clause. Now Trump’s direct financial interest in Turnberry should be scrutinized far more closely.
Legal experts widely agree that this kind of involvement from the British government would amount to a clear emoluments clause violation. Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer, recently cautioned against government investment as a potential pre-condition. He argues that the prime minister’s efforts to influence R&A’s decisions on where to hold tournaments show such government interference as to make the R&A a foreign emolument under the emoluments clause.
The short answer is that the Supreme Court already shot down two different Trump cases as moot upon his exiting the office. Furthermore, the court declined to hear an important case. In this particular instance, a lower court decided that Congress did not have the standing to sue an individual president under the foreign emoluments clause. This dearth of judicial precedent begs the question of how cases may play out in the future.
The Trump Organization defended its actions by stating, “The purpose of the Emoluments Clause has always been to prohibit the acceptance of financial benefits in exchange for the performance of one’s official duties – not to forbid the acceptance of profits emanating from a private, family-owned business.”
Legal scholars and legislators alike are watching the current conversations around the proposed golf event. They are keenly aware of any attempts to infringe upon constitutionally protected rules.