Copyright newsweek
Are you okay with the scale on which President Donald Trump is using the power of his office to enrich himself? Sure, presidents usually make money because they are famous, and people buy books they write. President Barack Obama made over $60 million selling his book rights. But he got that money after he was president, and he got it from Penguin Random House, not a company doing business with the federal government. President Donald Trump speaks in the Oval Office on August 14, 2025, in Washington, D.C. (Photo by Andrew Harnik/Getty Images) President Trump is different in ways that ought to make you think hard about what you can stomach. He has squeezed billions of riches from foreign governments and companies doing business with the government. Now he wants around $230 million directly from American taxpayers. He says it’s to make up for his claimed mistreatment by government investigators. Like the empty legal claims he used to obtain millions for himself from Elon Musk’s X, ABC, CBS, Facebook, Amazon and YouTube, this claim will never be heard in court and—to borrow a phrase—it’s a complete loser. In his out-of-court demand to the Justice Department for money, Trump rests his legal claim on proving that the attorney general and the director of the FBI are ordinary government operatives like some flat foots who, unlike policymakers, can get the government sued for wrongdoing. It further depends on proving that Trump was found innocent in his secret documents case when the case only ended because the government dropped it because he got elected president—not because he was innocent. In his claim, Trump only asked for $115 million. Now he wants $230 million. If you’re OK with this unprecedented use of presidential power for self-enrichment, read no more. But if it worries you, you should ask the next question: Can anyone stop him? It won’t be Attorney General Pam Bondi. She does what Trump tells her. It won’t be her deputy Todd Blanche, Trump’s former criminal defense attorney. And it won’t be the lawyer who is in charge of claims like these. He was one of the defense lawyers in the very case Trump is seeking money about. It won’t be government watchdogs. Trump has fired around two dozen corruption-fighting inspector generals. It won’t be Congress. Congress seems to be a legislature in name only. Remember, Vladimir Putin, Xi Jinping and Kim Jong Un all have legislatures. They just don’t matter. Neither apparently does ours. I doubt we can count on the courts anymore either. As with Congress, it’s not the lack of tools that’s keeping the judiciary from reigning in Trump. It’s a lack of will. Lawyers are bound by ethical rules. They bar lawyers from taking part in corruption—in or out of court. Approving a presidential order to put $230 million in his pocket would be an egregious ethics breach. But so far it looks like they will have nothing to fear. Pam Bondi has proved this. There is no national ethics code binding lawyers. There is no national ethics body to complain about lawyers’ ethical breaches. The states regulate legal ethics outside the courtroom. That’s why when President Bill Clinton’s law license was suspended for denying an affair during a deposition, it happened in Arkansas where Clinton was licensed. Bondi is licensed in Florida. Some 70 legal scholars, lawyers and former judges filed complaints against Bondi for coercing and firing lawyers who refused to break ethical rules in pursuit of the president’s agenda. Now the Florida Supreme Court has thrown out the complaint. Not because Bondi was innocent, but because the court apparently agreed that it should not investigate attorneys who are “sitting officers” of the U.S. government. The court didn’t address a federal law that says that federal government lawyers must follow the ethical rules of the state in which they are licensed. Who knows? Maybe some of the unethical lawyers are licensed in other states with a greater commitment to policing ethics. Maybe courts will punish government lawyers when they behave unethically in court. But that won’t stop Trump. His claim isn’t in court. It’s the functional equivalent of saying: “Give me money,” and the government replying, “Yes, sir.” In short, it looks like no one in government is willing to tell Trump: “Enough is enough.” Are you? Thomas G. Moukawsher is a former Connecticut complex litigation judge and a former co-chair of the American Bar Association Committee on Employee Benefits. He is the author of the book, The Common Flaw: Needless Complexity in the Courts and 50 Ways to Reduce It. The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.
