[Congressional Record Volume 172, Number 119 (Tuesday, July 21, 2026)]
[Senate]
[Pages S4170-S4172]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                 Unanimous Consent Request--S. Res. 807

  Mr. BLUMENTHAL. Mr. President, I am here today with a very 
straightforward, simple resolution. It is about enforcement. For most 
of my career, I was an enforcer: a Federal prosecutor, U.S. attorney 
for Connecticut, and then attorney general of the State of Connecticut 
for 20 years. So I know--we all know--that the law is dead letter if it 
is not enforced.
  And there is a very, very profoundly important law--in fact, our 
Constitution--that needs enforcement. That is the task that brings me 
to the Senate floor today.
  I am asking for a resolution to direct the Senate legal counsel to 
bring a civil action in the name of the U.S. Senate to enforce the 
foreign emoluments clause contained in article I of

[[Page S4171]]

the Constitution. This clause states that the President cannot accept 
any gifts, payments, benefits, or anything else of value from foreign 
governments, unless he receives the consent of Congress. Presidents 
have uniformly obeyed the emoluments clause for all of our illustrious 
250 years of existence.
  The Founders thought this clause was central to preserving our 
Nation. Why? Because at the time of our founding, we were a fledgling 
and struggling nation. Foreign powers like France and England were 
arrayed against us with potentates and rich businesspeople, powerful 
adversaries who could corrupt our leaders. And so specifically in the 
Constitution, as a matter of our national security--not just to prevent 
corruption, gift-taking that might violate our sense of morality, but 
as a matter of the defense of our Nation, they inserted the emoluments 
clause that required consent of Congress before the President, or any 
other public official, could accept anything of value, whether it be a 
benefit, an indirect payment--anything of value.

  And so now if you are a member of the armed services and you are 
asked to teach a course in another country and you are paid for it, you 
need to get permission. It applies to the lowliest of Federal officials 
and the highest. The emoluments clause is part of our Constitution.
  I know a lot about the emoluments clause because I sued Donald Trump 
under the emoluments clause during his first term, and we won at the 
district court level. In fact, we prevailed in that lawsuit, but then 
we were told that we had no standing. Under the Federal laws of 
procedure, a party in court, to successfully invoke the jurisdiction of 
the Federal courts, must have what is called standing, which is not 
just aggrievement but personal involvement and harm.
  And the court said, in effect: You are individual Members of 
Congress--there were more than 250 of us--but you are not the body; you 
are not the Senate; you are not the House of Representatives, which 
brings me here today because I want the U.S. Senate to take a stand--to 
stand up against the illegal practices of this President in taking an 
array of benefits, including payments--literally payments--in violation 
of the emoluments clause. The emoluments clause is a dead letter if it 
is not enforced, and our national security is at risk.
  President Trump's willingness to use the privileges of his office to 
enrich himself is well known to Americans, and it seems to have no 
bounds.
  Just this month, President Trump's gift from the government of 
Qatar--a $400 million jet--entered service as an interim Air Force One, 
but he wants to take that jet and then install it as part of his 
private library. In fact, he may use it afterward. We don't know.
  What we do know is costly modifications were required to ensure the 
installation of multiple top-secret systems to get the plane flight 
ready, and now it has to go back for more work because, in fact, the 
security system right now is inadequate. But we know taxpayers are 
going to foot the bill--a benefit to the President probably in excess 
of $1 billion.
  That jet barely scratches the surface of emoluments going to 
President Trump. In 2025, President Trump and his sons took about $500 
million for a 49 percent stake in the Trump family crypto business, 
World Liberty Financial, invested by the MGX Fund Management Limited, 
which is an investment firm in turn backed by a UAE sovereign wealth 
fund at the initiative of Sheikh Tahnoon, the UAE's national security 
advisor and the brother of UAE's President.
  In other words, an investment by the UAE wealth fund, controlled by 
the ruling family of the UAE, for 49 percent in World Liberty 
Financial, $500 million. And then magically--magically--President Trump 
approved sales of $1.4 million in military equipment for the UAE. And 
in addition, the sale of highly sophisticated advanced chips necessary 
for the UAE to build a data center that could rival ours in the United 
States--our national security compromised as a result of payments to 
World Liberty Financial--the Trump--and, by the way, Witkoff--family 
crypto business.
  This kind of self-enrichment has made a very wealthy Donald Trump 
even wealthier. He made $2 billion last year--$2 billion in income--1.4 
billion of it from crypto. It is not only offensive as a matter of 
self-enrichment, but it is a threat to our national security--exactly 
the same kind of threat that our Founders sought to prevent as a result 
of the emoluments clause.
  Not only has President Trump violated flagrantly the emoluments 
clause, but he has effectively slapped a ``for sale'' sign on the door 
of the Oval Office.
  He accepted a gold-plated desk clock and engraved gold bar as gifts 
from Swiss business executives before slashing Switzerland's tariff 
rate.
  He hosted a private gala dinner featuring a tour of the White House 
to reward top buyers of the Trump cryptocurrency meme coin. Attendees 
of that dinner included Chinese billionaires, CEOs, and investors with 
ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
  The American President is supposed to work for us, for the American 
people, for everyday Americans, not for his own self-enrichment, and 
that is what the emoluments clause is really supposed to guarantee--
that the President of the United States works for the United States, 
not for himself.
  As I mentioned, I tried to enforce the emoluments clause myself by 
filing a lawsuit on June 14, 2017. The United States Court for the 
District of Columbia held that we didn't have standing. I disagree. I 
think we do have standing under the law, but I respect the court's 
judgment; and so we are charting this path forward.
  This resolution is necessary now to give the Senate the ability to 
hold President Trump accountable on behalf of the American people to go 
to court and have our day before a judge who will assess the facts of 
this case and second guess me or any of us and rule and uphold the rule 
of law.
  I urge my colleagues to support this resolution to restore the 
dignity of the executive office and to assure enforcement of the 
Constitution of the United States of America.
  And so as if in legislative session and notwithstanding rule XXII, I 
ask unanimous consent that the Senate proceed to the immediate 
consideration of S. Res. 807; that the resolution be agreed to, the 
preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered 
made and laid upon the table.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. Is there objection?
  The Senator from Florida.
  Mr. SCOTT of Florida. Mr. President, reserving the right to object.
  Mr. President, at a time when we are seeing the Democrat Party 
embrace the hellish evils of socialism and ideologies that hate the 
founding ideals of America, Democrats are hoping to pass a resolution 
to direct this Chamber to sue the President of the United States on a 
very false premise.
  The emoluments clause reads:

       No title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States.

  I don't think that is happening.

       And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under 
     them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of 
     any present, Emolument, Office, or Title of any kind 
     [whatsoever], from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

  Now, the obvious answer is that these accusations by my colleague do 
not support the constitutional threshold of an emolument, and my 
Democrat colleagues are just playing politics.
  This resolution seeks to authorize litigation rather than 
legislation.
  This issue has already been litigated, and, as my colleague said, 
they lost. The Democrats just like don't like the answer.
  Now, the President isn't taking a plane or any gifts for personal 
use, and the United States has long accepted diplomatic gifts pursuant 
to Federal law, with such gifts generally becoming property of the 
United States rather than any individual officeholder.
  Now, what is going on here is the Democrats are putting their hatred 
for President Trump before the law. But aside from the obvious facts, 
this is the agenda Democrats want from this Chamber. They don't want to 
fund government; they want to shut it down.
  They walked away from government funding negotiations. They don't 
want to secure elections. They want systematic fraud because it 
benefits their elected incumbents.
  Department of Homeland Security just found 278,000 noncitizens on 
voter rolls for Federal elections. Are Democrats talking about that?

[[Page S4172]]

  Just last week, President Trump exposed foreign adversaries like 
China and Cuba for interfering in our elections. Did my Democratic 
colleagues talk about that?
  Leader Schumer responded to the facts about voter fraud by declaring 
the SAVE America Act, an election security bill--even though Democrats, 
Republicans, Independents all across the country believe in it--said it 
is ``dead on arrival.''
  Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues don't want fixes; they want 
to ignore the fraud because it benefits them.
  They are trying to distract the American people with platitudes while 
they defraud them of their vote.
  Have you looked at what Olive Garden is doing, OK? You can buy a 
pasta pass--an unlimited pasta pass, but guess what you have to do? You 
have to show an ID. So Olive Garden has a voter ID, but my Democratic 
colleagues don't want to do it for Federal elections.
  This bill proves that the Democrats' goal right now is to attack 
President Trump instead of fixing problems Americans expect us to deal 
with. They don't want to reduce the cost of living, lower inflation, 
balance the budget. They do want to tax working Americans so they can 
spend more of it on special interests and run bigger deficits--already 
spending $2 trillion in deficits.
  They want to use the Senate's time--the precious time we have--to 
attack President Trump by twisting the words of the Constitution.
  The resolution is moot. The accusations: Purely political. We all 
know it is political. It is a waste of time. And this Chamber only 
works 2-and-a-half days a week. I think we need to spend every time 
doing something like pass the SAVE America Act, fund our government, 
lower the debt, lower the deficit. Unfortunately, my Democratic 
colleagues aren't coming to the table.
  Why don't we spend some time on real issues rather than attacking the 
President?
  For those reasons, I object to passage of this resolution and hope my 
colleagues can reject the anti-American socialists capturing the 
Democratic Party before it is too late for all of us.
  I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The objection is heard.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.