Latest news with #RichardBriffault
USA Today
22-05-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Uncharted territory: US accepts 'gift' of $400 million Qatari plane
Uncharted territory: US accepts 'gift' of $400 million Qatari plane | The Excerpt On a special episode (first released on May 22, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: In 2018, the U.S. Air Force awarded a $3.9 billion contract to Boeing for two new Air Force One planes. For a variety of reasons, including delays tied to the need for workers with proper security clearances, Boeing may or may not be able to complete the order before the end of President Donald Trump's second term. Meanwhile, the Qatari Prime Minister offered to gift the president a luxury 747 jet valued at $400 million. And the Department of Defense has just accepted it. There are questions about whether the Qatari plane can even be brought up to Air Force One's safety and security standards before Trump leaves office. But the bigger question may be whether it was lawful for the president to accept it. Richard Briffault, Professor of Legislation at Columbia Law School, joins us on The Excerpt to share his insights. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Dana Taylor: Hello, and welcome to The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. Today is Wednesday, May 22nd, 2025, and this is a special episode of The Excerpt. In 2018, the U.S. Air Force awarded a $3.9 billion contract to Boeing for two new Air Force One planes for a variety of reasons, including delays tied to the need for workers with proper security clearances. Boeing may or may not be able to complete the order before the end of President Donald Trump's second term. Meanwhile, the Qatari Prime Minister has offered to gift the President a luxury 747 jet valued at $400 million, and the Department of Defense has just accepted it. There are questions about whether the Qatari plane can even be brought up to Air Force One's safety and security standards before Trump leaves office, but the bigger question may be whether it's lawful for the president to accept it. Here to share his insights on that, I'm now joined by Richard Briffault, Professor of Legislation at Columbia Law School. Thanks for joining me, Richard. Richard Briffault: My pleasure. Happy to be here. Dana Taylor: There are two emoluments clauses, the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause. Let's start with the Foreign Clause. What is its purpose and who does it apply to? Richard Briffault: The Foreign Emoluments Clause is basically designed to prevent federal officials from receiving gifts from foreign governments, from foreign heads of state. Many people think it relates to a specific incident during the period and time of the revolution of the time of the writing of the Constitution when Benjamin Franklin, who was then the ambassador to France, received an ornate jeweled box as a gift from the King of France. And people in America were suspicious that somehow this would've made him too pro-French, and so that at least is the story behind the Emoluments Clause. It applies to anybody, and this is the phrase in the Constitution, "Who holds an office of profit or trust under the United States." That clearly picks up all federal appointees, all federal officials. There is some debate as to whether it actually applies to the president technically, but the Office of Legal Counsel, which is the office in the Justice Department that advises presidents, has for a very long time assumed that it does. Uncharted territory: US accepts 'gift' of $400 million Qatari plane The Constitution's emoluments clause is clear, accepting the plane as a gift is illegal. We're way past that. Dana Taylor: And what about the Domestic Emoluments Clause? What is its purpose? Richard Briffault: Again, it applies to gifts from the states, and it's designed to prevent the president from being, or any federal official I should say, from being biased in favor of one of the states. If a state were to give a fancy gift to the president or to a federal official, they might be prejudiced or biased. There was an interpretation of that one involving when President Reagan became president, he had been Governor of California. Was there a problem in his receiving his pension from California? Because that was a gift from the... And then the office said, "No, there isn't, because he had of course earned that while he was governor." But that showed that that was seen as clearly applying to the president. Dana Taylor: The question many, including some of the president's supporters, have been asking is can a sitting president accept gifts from a foreign government and does the size of the gift matter? Richard Briffault: The size shouldn't matter. Of course the bigger the gift, the bigger the problem. I think the legal problem would begin even with a small gift. I mean, I think the key problem here is that whether it's a gift to the president as opposed to a gift to the United States. I mean, presidents have been receiving ceremonial gifts for years, an elephant here, a panda there, a jeweled sword somewhere else, and that usually just goes into the National Archives, or I guess the animals go to the zoo. But it's always been a long tradition of honorary gifts. But something like this, the scale of it is enormous, and of course it would be for the personal use of the president. Prior presidents were not using those jeweled swords or snuffboxes. Another thing that's most troubling is the idea that at the end of his term it wouldn't remain with the United States, but it would go to Trump's foundation. I think it might be a different story if this was literally a gift to the United States and the plane remained part of the United States government. Dana Taylor: Where are we legally and ethically with regards to the DOD accepting this gift on behalf of the president? Richard Briffault: Much will turn on the exact terms of the arrangement, but if, as I understand it from news accounts, the United States is accepting it during Trump's term but then it goes to Trump when he leaves office or it goes to the Trump Foundation, then basically the problem is it's essentially a gift to him. That triggers the Emoluments Clause and it would violate the Constitution unless Congress votes to accept it. That's the problem is that the United States may be taking possession so that of course the Defense Department can go through the plane and make sure that it's secure for national security purposes. But if at the end of Trump's term it goes with Trump rather than staying with the United States, then it's essentially a gift to him, and that means that we have all of the problems with the Emoluments Clause that we've all been talking about ever since this issue arose when Qatar made the offer. Dana Taylor: Are there other recent examples of a sitting president accepting a large gift from a foreign government? Richard Briffault: Not in a personal capacity. And I'm sure there have been gifts, and again, there are all sorts of ceremonial gifts that come, and these usually just go into the National Archives. I'm sure there have been gifts, but nothing like this. Dana Taylor: Whether or not the acceptance of the 747 jet is a good idea is a separate issue altogether. The bigger issue I want to get to here is that this is just the latest in a cavalcade of questionable actions by the president, the $1 million per plate fundraiser in April, his $1.5 million per person fundraiser for an unknown purpose earlier this month, a Middle East trip which included private dealmaking by both the president and those in his entourage, his and Melania's meme coins. The list goes on. Are all of these ethical violations? And if so, who will rein the president in? Richard Briffault: Yeah, so that's a great question, and you're right to put this in perspective. In some ways, the plane is relatively minor compared to the president's meme coin, the president's crypto business or the president's family's crypto business, the $TRUMP and the $MELANIA coins. The amounts of money there are potentially huge, and of course they go directly to the president or to the president's family. So you're absolutely right, the plane is very dramatic, but in some sense it's smaller, or as you suggest, it's part of a bigger picture of this president not having any kind of inner guardrails of any reluctance at all. Quite the opposite to use his office, public office for his own personal or private benefit. And in some ways, the essence of ethics, of government ethics is public office is a public trust, you should be using the public office only for public purposes and not for private gain. It's whether this technically violates any laws is a trickier question because relatively few laws apply to the president. Many of them, these were being done by members of the cabinet or members of the regular federal government, yes, be all sorts of legal violations, but the presidency is a unique position. Certainly you wouldn't expect his own Justice Department to enforce them against him, and there's really nobody else who can. So I think we've traditionally relied on presidents' own sense of what's the right thing to do with laws in the background, getting legal advice, and this is a president who doesn't really seem to care about that. As he says, "With respect to the plane, it would be foolish to turn down the gift." But the point is the whole reason we have rules like this is to prevent use of public office for private gain, and also to eliminate the danger that a president or anybody in public office would be biased or influenced to give favors to those people who've been giving favors to him. Not outright bribes, not outright deals, those I'm going to guess don't happen that much, and even in this case, I'm not sure that there's anyone could show that there was a outright bribe or an outright deal. But all these things are designed to make, when people are buying the meme coin or Qatari government giving the jet, they will all, whether it's intended or not, they're likely to have the effect of the president being more favorably disposed to the giver and the buyer, the person who's supporting him financially than otherwise, and that can affect decisions. On crypto, he's in the position to approve laws and to influence the development of laws and the enforcement of laws that deal with the whole industry. So there he's got direct stake. The Qatari jet, he makes foreign policy. He's going to decide what positions we take on things in the Middle East, and obviously they have a huge stake in that. Dana Taylor: As you said, the president's office is part of the public trust. The list of President Trump's business ventures runs the gambit from selling cologne and crypto to building lavish resorts and golf courses across the globe. Is the public trust eroded when a president profits from his privileged position, and what's the impact to America's standing in the world globally? Richard Briffault: I think it hurts us globally. I think until this president, United States really did stand as a symbol or a pillar of democracy, of rule of law, of checks and balances, and even of public integrity. I think Americans helped other countries, particularly emerging democracies, set up their anti-corruption rules and how to deal with that, and basically making the argument that elected officials that are there to serve the public and not themselves, which is not always the case in many countries around the world, and I think United States played an important role in promoting that vision of public officials as serving their people, not themselves. I think this totally undermines our credibility for that. Regardless of whether it's affecting any individual policy decisions of his, he's acting like any other person, any other leader of another country who is using office to enrich himself. Dana Taylor: Richard, thank you so much for being on The Excerpt. Richard Briffault: My pleasure. Thank you for having me. Dana Taylor: Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan, for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@ Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
Boston Globe
01-04-2025
- Business
- Boston Globe
In Mass., lobbyists, special interests get around campaign finance laws by donating to nonprofits
But if a lawmaker happens to lead a nonprofit — as is the case for a handful of lawmakers on Beacon Hill — lobbyists and business interests have a third, more secretive way. Donations to nonprofits don't require disclosure and are, therefore, essentially impossible to track. The revelation spotlights a loophole in the state's 30-year-old a lawmaker soliciting donations to their nonprofits — a practice that is prohibited at the federal level and raises questions by experts about what should be disclosed. It's a well-used path. As hard as such giving can be to pin down, a Boston Globe review found that some of the state's most influential lobbying firms and businesses with interests before the Legislature, are contributing thousands to some of the state's most powerful players on Beacon Hill. Advertisement A Globe review of IRS 990 forms found that a handful of state lawmakers actively run their own nonprofits, which hold fund-raisers and events that solicit donations. A developer building a massive housing project in East Boston, for example, donated to a nonprofit run by a state representative whose district encompasses the construction site. Advertisement 'A donation like this is like a gift to the official and therefore should be disclosed,' said legal scholar Richard Briffault, a professor of legislation at Columbia Law School in New York City. 'The focus should be on things that are likely to lead to reciprocity and gratitude. If someone does something nice for you, there is a natural inclination to give it back,' said Briffault, who also served as chairman of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board. 'Unless there is a specific rule on this, it's likely to slip through cracks.' Because nonprofits are not required to disclose their donors, it's also nearly impossible to know who is donating and how much. However, a review of websites and social media accounts for nonprofits run by state lawmakers provides a glimpse into the practice. Take for instance, Representative Adrian Madaro's 'Madaro Family Community Fund,' which brought in $112,000 for its 2023 'Eastie's Elves' holiday fund-raiser, a community toy drive backed by East Boston Neighborhood Health Center sponsored the fund-raiser with a $10,000 donation. A dozen lobbyists from three different firms donated to the fund-raiser and also chipped in maximum $200 donations to his political campaign. Other $10,000 checks came from Amazon and HYM Investment Group, a real estate company that is building Others on the donor list included some of Boston's top lobbying shops: Commonwealth Counsel; Serlin Haley; Smith, Costello, and Crawford; Travaglini, Scorzoni, & Kiley; and Rasky Partners. None responded to a request for comment. Advertisement One week after the Globe inquired about the nonprofit's donors, Madaro filed an ethics disclosure with the House clerk to provide a list of donors and to 'dispel the appearance of a conflict of interest.' 'A reasonable person could conclude that a person or organization could unduly enjoy my favor or improperly influence me when I perform my official duties, or that I am likely to act or fail to act as a result of kinship, rank, position or undue influence of a party or person,' he wrote in the disclosure. Madaro, cochair of the Legislature's revenue committee, continued: 'I do not make decisions about potential legislation, my involvement in community matters or the provision of constituent services based on whether particular individuals or entities have, or have not, contributed to the Fund.' In the disclosure, Madaro didn't indicate taking any further action, and told the Globe 'donations to our nonprofit have no bearing on policy decisions at the State House.' This sort of giving is not allowed elsewhere. At the federal level, members of Congress who maintain or control a nonprofit can't solicit or accept monetary or in-kind contributions from lobbyists or foreign agents. Under While those laws don't exist at the state level in Massachusetts, the laws governing what candidates can accept and what they must disclose exist for a reason, said Delaney Marsco, director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, a Washington, D.C.-based watchdog. Advertisement 'It's an area that is ripe for corruption,' Marsco said. 'By allowing a lobbyist or a contractor or an interested party to circumvent these approved channels and instead donate to nonprofits who do not have to disclose their donors . . . it takes away that transparency element and it allows lobbyists to do so in secret. That is very bad and a detriment to the public's trust.' It's not just Madaro's events that solicit such high-profile donors. State Senator Sal DiDomenico, the chamber's assistant majority leader, hosts an Sponsors of the Everett Democrat's 2024 event included pharmaceutical companies, real estate developers, and casinos with a presence in the state. The list also included a number of high-powered lobbying firms such as Dempsey Associates and Serlin Haley, whose lobbyists are bound by the state's strict campaign finance law. These firms did not respond to a request for comment. To be sure, there are altruistic reasons to give to nonprofits. DiDomenico said his family has been part of the Italian festival for more than 70 years, 'long before I was ever thinking about elected office.' 'There is absolutely no connection or influence by anyone associated with this community event on my work in the Legislature,' he told the Globe in a statement. 'This includes vendors, sponsors, attendees and society members.' Senator Barry Finegold's annual benefit concert for Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, a 5,000-seat fête held at MGM Music Hall in Boston's Fenway neighborhood, had a similarly noteworthy list of sponsors. Finegold, who chairs the Legislature's economic development committee, has Advertisement None responded to a request for comment. In a statement, Finegold said his family has been hit hard by cancer, and that raising money for hospitals such as Dana-Farber 'is especially critical this year with potential federal cuts.' 'We are committed more than ever to do everything we can to beat cancer,' he said. Republican state Representative Hannah Kane's nonprofit, ' Various banks, construction firms, and waste management companies sponsor the carts, caddies, birdies, and the barbeque lunch that follows. The fund-raiser, which was started by former lieutenant governor Karyn Polito, sent $60,000 to three nonprofits in Shrewsbury and Westborough last year —Shrewsbury Youth and Family Services, St. Anne's Human Services, and the Westborough Food Pantry. 'The impact of the generous tournament donors is on the three nonprofit human service organizations who serve hundreds of residents in Shrewsbury and Westborough,' Kane told the Globe. 'The donors do not impact my legislative work.' Matt Stout and Anjali Huynh of the Globe staff contributed to this report. Samantha J. Gross can be reached at
