PolicyBrief
H.R. 490
119th CongressJan 16th 2025
Constitutional Emoluments Protection of American Interests Act of 2025
IN COMMITTEE

Prohibits federal funds from being used at properties owned, managed, or controlled by Donald J. Trump and blocks new contracts with these properties.

Steve Cohen
D

Steve Cohen

Representative

TN-9

LEGISLATION

Bill Blocks Federal Spending and Contracts at Trump Properties

A proposed piece of legislation, the "Constitutional Emoluments Protection of American Interests Act of 2025," takes direct aim at the business interests of a specific individual. Section 2 of the bill lays out a clear prohibition: no federal funds can be used at any property or entity that is owned, managed, or controlled by Donald J. Trump. This ban extends beyond just direct spending; it also explicitly blocks the federal government from entering into any new contracts, grants, or cooperative agreements with these same properties.

Drawing a Line: No Federal Dollars for Trump Entities

So, what does this look like on the ground? If this bill becomes law, government agencies wouldn't be able to book rooms at Trump hotels for official travel, host events at his resorts using taxpayer money, or award new contracts to businesses operating under his umbrella. The language – "owned, managed, or controlled" – suggests a broad reach, potentially covering a wide range of assets associated with the former president. It's a straightforward directive focused solely on financial interactions between the federal government and Trump-linked entities.

Targeted Action or Fair Play?

While the bill is concise, its implications raise questions. On one hand, it could be viewed as a measure to prevent potential conflicts of interest or the appearance of federal funds enriching a specific political figure, aligning with the 'Emoluments Protection' title. On the other hand, singling out one private citizen and their businesses in federal law is unusual and prompts discussion about fairness and whether this sets a precedent. The immediate impact would fall on the specified businesses, but potentially also on their employees or other companies that might otherwise partner with them on government-related work. The bill itself doesn't detail the reasoning behind targeting only this individual, leaving the interpretation of its purpose – whether as an ethical safeguard or a political maneuver – open.