Proposed Bill Bans Federal Agencies from Spending Money at Trump-Owned Businesses

This bill, officially titled the Constitutional Emoluments Protection of American Interests Act of 2025, sets a hard line on how the federal government can spend taxpayer money. Specifically, Section 2 of this Act prohibits any federal funds from being used at any place or business that is owned, run, or controlled by Donald J. Trump.

This means federal agencies can’t sign any new contracts, issue grants, or enter into cooperative agreements with those entities. Think of it as a mandatory, government-wide procurement blackout for a specific set of private businesses. The stated purpose is to ensure a strict separation between the financial interests of a high-profile political figure and the flow of federal dollars.

The 'No Government Bookings' Rule

For most people, the immediate impact of this bill might feel distant, but it’s a big deal for federal operations and the businesses involved. Imagine you’re a government employee who needs to book a conference room for a regional meeting. If the most convenient or cost-effective venue happens to be a hotel owned by the named individual, this bill says, "Nope, find somewhere else." The government can’t even use those businesses for small things, like buying office supplies from a company that falls under the ownership umbrella.

This restriction isn’t just about big defense contracts; it applies to every single dollar. While the intent is to prevent conflicts of interest—a valid concern—the practical challenge lies in enforcement. The bill relies heavily on defining what counts as “owned, run, or controlled” by Donald J. Trump. That definition is where the administrative complexity and potential legal battles will likely crop up. If the ownership structure is complicated, agencies might spend significant time and resources just trying to figure out if they can legally book a room or sign a contract.

Targeting vs. General Policy

What makes this legislation unique and a bit concerning is its highly specific nature. Instead of creating a broad ethics rule that applies to all former presidents or high-ranking officials to prevent future conflicts, this bill names one person. For the entities owned by Mr. Trump, this means they are immediately cut off from competing for any federal business—a significant economic restriction based solely on ownership.

For taxpayers, this could be a mixed bag. On one hand, it ensures that federal spending is protected from the appearance of self-dealing. On the other hand, if a Trump-associated entity happens to be the best, fastest, or cheapest provider for a specific government need—say, a specialized IT service or a unique real estate lease—the government is forced to choose a less optimal, potentially more expensive option. This could indirectly increase costs for agencies, which eventually gets passed back to the taxpayer. It’s a trade-off between ethical purity and procurement efficiency, and this bill strongly favors the former, even if it introduces administrative headaches and potential cost increases for the latter.