The Saudi Connection: How Trump's Business Deals Threaten American Democracy

The Facts: Unprecedented Conflicts of Interest

President Donald Trump’s administration has ushered in a disturbing new era of blurred lines between presidential duties and family business interests, particularly concerning Saudi Arabia. While the President engages in sensitive national security discussions with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, his family business—the Trump Organization—is simultaneously negotiating lucrative deals with Saudi government-backed entities. This arrangement represents a fundamental breach of ethical norms that previous administrations worked diligently to avoid.

The scale of these connections is staggering. Dar Global, a business partner with close Saudi government ties, has announced at least four Trump-branded developments in Saudi Arabia since Trump’s election. These include a planned Trump tower in Jeddah, multiple projects in Riyadh, and a proposed “Trump Plaza” development described as a $1 billion project. Most concerning is the Diriyah project—a $63 billion government-owned real estate development where the Trump Organization is negotiating to bring a Trump-branded property. The chairman of Diriyah’s board? None other than Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman himself.

The financial arrangements are equally troubling. Dar Global paid the Trump Organization $21.9 million in licensing fees last year alone, with some of that money going directly to the president. Meanwhile, Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and former senior advisor, received a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund for his investment firm. Kushner’s firm then partnered with the same Saudi fund in a potential $55 billion deal to take Electronic Arts private, which would represent the largest leveraged buyout in history.

The Context: Erosion of Ethical Standards

What makes these developments particularly alarming is how they represent a complete departure from established ethical standards in American government. Previous presidents from both parties took extraordinary measures to avoid even the appearance of conflicts of interest. They placed their assets in blind trusts, divested from businesses that could create conflicts, and maintained clear separation between official duties and personal financial interests.

The Trump administration has taken the opposite approach. When asked about these conflicts, White House spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt offered a blanket denial that conflicts exist, while President Trump himself claimed he has “nothing to do with the family business” while simultaneously defending his family’s right to “do business all over.” This contradictory stance reveals a fundamental misunderstanding of—or disregard for—the ethical obligations of public office.

Kushner’s defense of these arrangements during a “60 Minutes” interview was equally concerning. Alongside Steve Witkoff, Trump’s Middle East peace envoy who also has significant business interests in the Gulf, Kushner dismissed concerns about conflicts of interest, saying “What people call conflicts of interests, Steve and I call experience and trusted relationships that we have throughout the world.” This redefinition of corruption as “experience” represents a dangerous normalization of behavior that should be universally condemned.

The Dangerous Precedent: Why This Matters

Compromised Foreign Policy

The most immediate concern is how these financial entanglements compromise American foreign policy. When the President’s family stands to profit from relationships with foreign governments, how can Americans trust that policy decisions are made in the national interest rather than for personal financial gain? The situation with Saudi Arabia is particularly troubling given the kingdom’s human rights record, involvement in Yemen’s civil war, and the murder of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.

Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen, perfectly captured the danger: “Branding and licensing deals are a way for the Saudi government to make direct payments to the Trump family in exchange for no work or services provided. These arrangements are not just ethically bankrupt—they fundamentally compromise U.S. foreign policy.” This isn’t hypothetical concern—it’s a clear and present danger to the integrity of American diplomacy.

Erosion of Democratic Norms

Beyond specific policy concerns, this pattern of behavior represents a systematic erosion of democratic norms that protect against corruption. The founders understood the danger of foreign influence and designed constitutional safeguards accordingly. When those safeguards are circumvented through creative financial arrangements, the very foundation of representative democracy is undermined.

The recent announcement of a Trump hotel in the Maldives that will be “tokenized”—allowing anonymous investment through blockchain technology—suggests these arrangements are becoming increasingly opaque. This makes it harder to track foreign influence and represents a deliberate effort to evade transparency measures designed to protect democratic processes.

The Normalization of Corruption

Perhaps most insidiously, these developments risk normalizing behavior that should be considered unacceptable in a democratic society. When high-ranking officials openly profit from their positions while dismissing concerns as mere “conflicts of interest,” they send a message that public service is just another vehicle for personal enrichment. This corrodes public trust and sets a dangerous precedent for future administrations.

The comparison to practices in hereditary monarchies like those in the Persian Gulf—where the article notes that “the term ‘conflict of interest’ carries little weight”—should alarm every American who values democratic governance. The United States was founded in opposition to such systems, where ruling families treat national resources as personal property.

The Path Forward: Restoring Integrity

The solution to this crisis requires both immediate corrective actions and long-term structural reforms. Immediately, there should be full transparency about all foreign business dealings involving the president’s family and close associates. All potential conflicts should be reviewed by independent ethics officials with real authority to investigate and recommend remedies.

Long-term, Congress must strengthen ethics laws to clearly prohibit the kinds of arrangements detailed in this article. The Emoluments Clause of the Constitution provides a foundation, but needs modern interpretation and enforcement mechanisms to address contemporary financial arrangements. We need clearer standards for what constitutes a conflict of interest, stronger disclosure requirements, and meaningful penalties for violations.

Most importantly, Americans must reject the normalization of this behavior through their votes and their voices. Democracy depends on citizens who demand accountability from their leaders and who refuse to accept corruption as “business as usual.” The principles of ethical governance aren’t partisan issues—they’re fundamental to preserving the Republic that generations of Americans have fought to protect.

Conclusion: A Call to Action

The situation described in this article represents more than just individual ethical lapses—it signals a systemic threat to American democracy. When foreign governments can funnel money to the president’s family through business deals, when senior advisors treat their government positions as networking opportunities for future business ventures, and when all of this is defended as normal practice, we have crossed into dangerous territory.

Every American who values democracy, the rule of law, and ethical government should be alarmed by these developments. This isn’t about partisan politics—it’s about preserving the integrity of American institutions and ensuring that public service remains about serving the public, not personal enrichment. The time for concerned citizens to speak out and demand accountability is now, before these practices become so normalized that they become impossible to reverse.

Our democracy is resilient, but it requires constant vigilance and defense. The patterns described in this article test that resilience in fundamental ways. How we respond will determine whether future generations inherit a government of integrity or one where personal profit has replaced public service as the operating principle.