51¶ÌÊÓƵ

They were among the big spenders at Donald Trump's Washington, D.C., hotel while he was president — and many got what they wanted, according to a report released Friday by Democrats on the House Oversight Committee.

The 57-page report said spending at Trump's luxury hotel by those seeking favors helped him turn the presidency into a "money-making opportunity," raising the specter of more "pay to play" schemes should GOP presidential nominee be reelected next month.

But the report, which focused on spending by U.S. officials rather than foreign governments, offered few new revelations from earlier findings as it was limited in scope. The committee's Democrats, who are in the minority, documented $300,000 of such spending in just 11 months of Trump's presidency spanning 2017 and 2018.

Records examined by the committee also did not always include whether the money was personal or from taxpayer sources. That distinction is necessary to show whether the payments amounted to a violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause, which bars presidents from receiving payments or gifts from government officials without congressional approvals.

Among the examples cited: Two former ambassadors — one eventually sent to Germany and the other Switzerland — spending thousands of dollars at the hotel before and after they were confirmed for their positions. And campaign fundraiser Elliott Broidy spending more than $15,000 there before he was pardoned by Trump for illegal lobbying.

"We must put legal barriers in place now to prevent the kind of rip-off corruption our Founding Fathers so strongly opposed," Rep. Jamie Raskin, the committee's ranking member, said in calling for new legislation to prohibit such spending.

The Trump Organization claimed it charges government officials at cost at its properties, and described the report as purely political.

"This is just another desperate attempt by House Democrats to rehash an old unsubstantiated story just two weeks before the upcoming Presidential Election," said company spokeswoman Kimberly Benza in a statement. "To be clear, The Trump Organization does not profit whatsoever from any government officials staying at our properties."

In a statement, the Republican-controlled Oversight Committee called the report "more recycled garbage from the Democrats' fruitless and close to a decade-long investigation of President Trump."

The report was based on financial documents released by Trump's former accounting firm, Mazars, at request of the Oversight Committee when the Democrats were in control. The flow of those documents was shut down when the Republicans took over in 2023.

The report says at least 16 federal and state officials spent more than $100,000 at the Trump International Hotel while in office during the 11-month period, raising the possibility they used taxpayer money.

Spending by ambassadors to Canada, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Hungary and the United Kingdom often came at times when they were on official business.

During a 2018 conference in Maryland, 10 miles from Washington, U.S. ambassadors to Germany, Switzerland and Canada chose to stay at the Trump hotel even though there were plenty of hotels closer to the conference site.

"Let's Keep TRUMP hotel," wrote then-Canadian Ambassador Kelly Craft in email after an aide suggested closer hotels. The charge for Craft's stay was $1,395 per night, according to the report.

Former ambassador to Germany, Richard Grenell, stayed 19 nights at the hotel, half before he was confirmed as ambassador, spending nearly $10,000, the report says.

A spokeswoman for Craft claimed the former ambassador personally paid for all room expenses above the government-approved per diem rates, adding, "There was absolutely never any direct or indirect 'pay to play' inferences by President Trump or anyone associated with him."

Grenell did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

The Trump administration argues government officials paying for products or services offered by a president, such as use of a hotel room, doesn't count as a banned gift under the emoluments clause. The Supreme Court declined to rule when the issue came before it in 2021 because Trump already left office.

Kathleen Clark, a government ethics expert, said the emoluments clause is only part of the problem.

"The fact that folks who eventually got pardons and others who sought appointments chose to line Trump's pockets during this 11-month period is troubling, suggesting that those wanting Trump to take particular actions believed it was in their interest to spend money at his businesses," said Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. "Do we want a president who can be influenced this way?"

The report says four future federal judges also stayed at the hotel at key dates during the 11-month period while pursuing Trump's nomination, Senate confirmation or both.