LEVICK Risk and Business Strategy | January 30th, 2017
Business Ethics in the Trump Era

“Tone from the top matters.â€
Such was the thesis of the Director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) during rare public comments delivering his assessment that, thus far, then President-elect Donald Trump™’s plans for avoiding conflicts of interest during his presidency are inadequate. The week before his inauguration, Trump and his lawyer announced that Trump would put his two sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, in charge of his business, and sell off his various investments. They claimed that his sons would not tell Trump about the goings-on of the business, but stopped short of creating a blind trust. Additionally, they claimed that the Trump Organization would not pursue any new foreign business deals during Trump™’s presidency, and that any ongoing foreign deals would be halted. This has already proven to be untrue – in one instance, a Trump golf course in Scotland is moving ahead with an expansion project.
Further, limiting the conflict of interest restrictions to simply “The Trump Organization†does not take into account Trump™’s son-in-law and recently appointed Senior Adviser Jared Kushner, whose family real estate concern has continued to pursue deals with Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance Group even as Kushner was preparing for his White House role.
In making his point about the importance of the president™’s ethics signaling, OGE Director Walter Shaub contrasted Trump™’s intended measures with those of his cabinet-in-waiting (most, but not all, of whom have signed letters promising full divestiture of assets) imploring that “the greater the authority entrusted in the government official, the greater the potential for conflicts of interest†and noting that “nothing short of divestiture†could solve Trump™’s conflict of interest problems.
Three days after his inauguration, an independent ethics watchdog NGO (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) filed a lawsuit against Trump in the Southern District of New York, claiming that Trump™’s conflict of interest plans would still allow him to profit from foreign businesses in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. The lawsuit wants the courts to “stop and prevent…[Trump™’s] Foreign Emoluments Clause violations.†While it remains to be seen whether Trump™’s any of business interests even constitute “foreign emoluments,†we should all hope that the courts provide clarity; but, even if this lawsuit sets a precedent (as NPR notes, the courts have never before ruled on the Emoluments Clause), the tone will still have been set for at least the Trump administration.
Tone from Congress matters, too.
On the day before the opening session of the new Congress, House Republicans met in secret to deliberate on rules for the upcoming Congress. During this session, House Republicans voted their approval for introducing a measure the next day in session that would effectively neuter the power of the previously independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), by requiring it to, among other things, submit all leads on possible criminal activity to the House Committee on Ethics (composed of Congress members) before notifying law enforcement authorities, as well as barring the OCE from accepting anonymous tips.
Although Congressional Republicans responded to the public outcry (including a tweet from Trump) by nixing a vote on the measure the next day, their willingness to even raise such an issue is troubling. Furthermore, it was made clear by a number of Republican leaders (including those that raised initial objections) that their primary concerns were with the timing and optics, but not necessarily the substance, of the proposed measure. There is more evidence that Congress is willing to assert group interest over ethical constructs – Congressman Jason Chaffetz, the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has sharply criticized the OGE Director™’s public comments on the now president, and threatened to subpoena him for questioning. Director Shaub is, after all, an Obama appointee with two years left on his term (although he had worked in OGE since before Obama™’s election in 2008).
Government ethics are business ethics.
To expand on the point made above by the OGE Director, tone from the government matters when it comes to the ethics of business. The political drama is both reflective of, and refracts back upon, the moral timbre of a society and all its constituent elements – which includes businesses large and small. Although perhaps yet speculative, the signals emanating from the incoming administration indicate that the government might not enforce business regulations even if it does not roll them back. The signals also suggest that the ability of private enterprise to influence public levers in their favor will become even more the currency of the day than it has been before.
But there is another complication. Since the election, Trump has taken to Twitter on multiple occasions to criticize individual companies by name and make vague threats of punishing them. These tweets have induced demonstrable impacts to the target companies’ stock prices. The possibility that the president may randomly denigrate one™’s company on Twitter and inflict it harm is certainly more of a constraint than any degree of ethicality or lack thereof.  This new environment, in which the contours of risk have shifted from ethical considerations into the mercurial temperament of political leadership, is much less predictable.
An ethically weak and inscrutable political economy may bear significant consequences for business in the long term.
Ethics from the bottom up.
There appears to be little that can be done to avoid a Twitter tirade. But risks associated with ethicality may still be within the remit of private enterprise. Business owners, managers, legal counsel teams, and compliance officers should decide on (if they have not already done so) a concrete plan for how to answer ethical questions that will inevitably emerge under a new political paradigm. Some, but not all, of the reasons are as follows:
- Nothing lasts forever – companies do not know what will happen during the Trump administration or after. Actions taken now or in the next four years that may seem permissible under the current paradigm may be used as evidence against one in the future, when the paradigm shifts. How businesses conform to present temptations may be used as a litmus test against them in the future.
- It is in the interests of companies to voluntarily submit to a rules-based order. In such an order, the rules (particularly those that govern how businesses and governments are to interact) are clear, consistent, and arrived at logically. The best guarantor of such an order is a disinterested government – companies should favor pressing government officials not only for removing odious and stifling regulations but also for well-considered regulations that maximize market efficiencies.
- Corruption is many things and not simply a transaction of money or benefits. Corruption in political and societal functions, whittled to its essence, encompasses not just the paying of bribes or the exchange of favors, but using one™’s vested power contrary to the purposes for which it has been entrusted. A system becomes corrupt at the moment its institutions fail or refuse to enforce the ethical standards for which they were intended, well before those failures enable payoffs and bribes.
It is increasingly apparent that institutions are more dependent on norms than we previously realized. Norms, which are behavior-based, are fickle and malleable. For example, nothing but norms can prevent Congress from flexing its muscle and neutering its own oversight body (the Office of Congressional Ethics). Given this reality, companies need to be proactive in developing ethical norms in the absence of institutional guarantees.
LEVICK Risk and Business Strategy | January 30th, 2017
Business Ethics in the Trump Era

“Tone from the top matters.â€
Such was the thesis of the Director of the Office of Government Ethics (OGE) during rare public comments delivering his assessment that, thus far, then President-elect Donald Trump™’s plans for avoiding conflicts of interest during his presidency are inadequate. The week before his inauguration, Trump and his lawyer announced that Trump would put his two sons, Donald Jr. and Eric, in charge of his business, and sell off his various investments. They claimed that his sons would not tell Trump about the goings-on of the business, but stopped short of creating a blind trust. Additionally, they claimed that the Trump Organization would not pursue any new foreign business deals during Trump™’s presidency, and that any ongoing foreign deals would be halted. This has already proven to be untrue – in one instance, a Trump golf course in Scotland is moving ahead with an expansion project.
Further, limiting the conflict of interest restrictions to simply “The Trump Organization†does not take into account Trump™’s son-in-law and recently appointed Senior Adviser Jared Kushner, whose family real estate concern has continued to pursue deals with Chinese conglomerate Anbang Insurance Group even as Kushner was preparing for his White House role.
In making his point about the importance of the president™’s ethics signaling, OGE Director Walter Shaub contrasted Trump™’s intended measures with those of his cabinet-in-waiting (most, but not all, of whom have signed letters promising full divestiture of assets) imploring that “the greater the authority entrusted in the government official, the greater the potential for conflicts of interest†and noting that “nothing short of divestiture†could solve Trump™’s conflict of interest problems.
Three days after his inauguration, an independent ethics watchdog NGO (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) filed a lawsuit against Trump in the Southern District of New York, claiming that Trump™’s conflict of interest plans would still allow him to profit from foreign businesses in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution. The lawsuit wants the courts to “stop and prevent…[Trump™’s] Foreign Emoluments Clause violations.†While it remains to be seen whether Trump™’s any of business interests even constitute “foreign emoluments,†we should all hope that the courts provide clarity; but, even if this lawsuit sets a precedent (as NPR notes, the courts have never before ruled on the Emoluments Clause), the tone will still have been set for at least the Trump administration.
Tone from Congress matters, too.
On the day before the opening session of the new Congress, House Republicans met in secret to deliberate on rules for the upcoming Congress. During this session, House Republicans voted their approval for introducing a measure the next day in session that would effectively neuter the power of the previously independent Office of Congressional Ethics (OCE), by requiring it to, among other things, submit all leads on possible criminal activity to the House Committee on Ethics (composed of Congress members) before notifying law enforcement authorities, as well as barring the OCE from accepting anonymous tips.
Although Congressional Republicans responded to the public outcry (including a tweet from Trump) by nixing a vote on the measure the next day, their willingness to even raise such an issue is troubling. Furthermore, it was made clear by a number of Republican leaders (including those that raised initial objections) that their primary concerns were with the timing and optics, but not necessarily the substance, of the proposed measure. There is more evidence that Congress is willing to assert group interest over ethical constructs – Congressman Jason Chaffetz, the Chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee has sharply criticized the OGE Director™’s public comments on the now president, and threatened to subpoena him for questioning. Director Shaub is, after all, an Obama appointee with two years left on his term (although he had worked in OGE since before Obama™’s election in 2008).
Government ethics are business ethics.
To expand on the point made above by the OGE Director, tone from the government matters when it comes to the ethics of business. The political drama is both reflective of, and refracts back upon, the moral timbre of a society and all its constituent elements – which includes businesses large and small. Although perhaps yet speculative, the signals emanating from the incoming administration indicate that the government might not enforce business regulations even if it does not roll them back. The signals also suggest that the ability of private enterprise to influence public levers in their favor will become even more the currency of the day than it has been before.
But there is another complication. Since the election, Trump has taken to Twitter on multiple occasions to criticize individual companies by name and make vague threats of punishing them. These tweets have induced demonstrable impacts to the target companies’ stock prices. The possibility that the president may randomly denigrate one™’s company on Twitter and inflict it harm is certainly more of a constraint than any degree of ethicality or lack thereof.  This new environment, in which the contours of risk have shifted from ethical considerations into the mercurial temperament of political leadership, is much less predictable.
An ethically weak and inscrutable political economy may bear significant consequences for business in the long term.
Ethics from the bottom up.
There appears to be little that can be done to avoid a Twitter tirade. But risks associated with ethicality may still be within the remit of private enterprise. Business owners, managers, legal counsel teams, and compliance officers should decide on (if they have not already done so) a concrete plan for how to answer ethical questions that will inevitably emerge under a new political paradigm. Some, but not all, of the reasons are as follows:
- Nothing lasts forever – companies do not know what will happen during the Trump administration or after. Actions taken now or in the next four years that may seem permissible under the current paradigm may be used as evidence against one in the future, when the paradigm shifts. How businesses conform to present temptations may be used as a litmus test against them in the future.
- It is in the interests of companies to voluntarily submit to a rules-based order. In such an order, the rules (particularly those that govern how businesses and governments are to interact) are clear, consistent, and arrived at logically. The best guarantor of such an order is a disinterested government – companies should favor pressing government officials not only for removing odious and stifling regulations but also for well-considered regulations that maximize market efficiencies.
- Corruption is many things and not simply a transaction of money or benefits. Corruption in political and societal functions, whittled to its essence, encompasses not just the paying of bribes or the exchange of favors, but using one™’s vested power contrary to the purposes for which it has been entrusted. A system becomes corrupt at the moment its institutions fail or refuse to enforce the ethical standards for which they were intended, well before those failures enable payoffs and bribes.
It is increasingly apparent that institutions are more dependent on norms than we previously realized. Norms, which are behavior-based, are fickle and malleable. For example, nothing but norms can prevent Congress from flexing its muscle and neutering its own oversight body (the Office of Congressional Ethics). Given this reality, companies need to be proactive in developing ethical norms in the absence of institutional guarantees.
- Brand
- The Fifth Estate: A Business Guide for Surviving “The Troubles”
- Here We Come
- Corporate Revolt Over Campaign Donations Shakes Political World
- What Happens Next?
- CSR & Sustainability
- Public Perception & the Biden Transition
- WATCH: Reputation Management with PRSA
- Over the River and Through The Woods
- Why Non-Profits are so Vulnerable to Crisis Risk
- The Threat to Free Markets
- What Happens When Nonprofits Get Caught In The Klieg Lights?
- You Took a PPP Loan. Now Get Ready to Talk About It.
- Communications
- The Fifth Estate: A Business Guide for Surviving “The Troubles”
- Here We Come
- The Ministry of Common Sense
- Why Should I Apologize? Lawyers vs. Communicators
- What Happens Next?
- CSR & Sustainability
- A Conversation with Abbe Lowell
- A New Year’s Resolution
- Public Perception & the Biden Transition
- WATCH: Reputation Management with PRSA
- Leveraging Legal Expertise in Communications
- Over the River and Through The Woods
- Company News
- Here We Come
- Recent Awards & Recognition
- Won’t You Be My Neighbor?
- What’s a Director to Do?
- LEVICK Announces Partnership with BCG
- A New Look
- Albert Krieger, 1923-2020
- LEVICK Announces Partnership with Jipyong
- Speaking to In-House Counsel
- Childhood Lessons
- LEVICK Announces New Webinar Series with Turbine Labs
- LEVICK Launches New Website
- Crisis
- The Fifth Estate: A Business Guide for Surviving “The Troubles”
- What to expect as the clock approaches midnight
- How to Stop the Madness
- Corporate Revolt Over Campaign Donations Shakes Political World
- A Remembrance of Tommy Raskin
- No ‘justice’ in rep’s vote
- A Call for Orderly & Peaceful Transition of Power
- Recovering from the Greatest Sacrifice
- The Cost of Government Regulation and the Threat to Free Enterprise
- What Happens Next?
- A Conversation with Abbe Lowell
- Covid-19: The Pandemic that Never Should Have Happened
- Finance
- Here We Come
- The Threat to Free Markets
- Advisory & Insurance Services
- WATCH: Revolutionizing Litigation Finance
- Litigation Finance: Revolutionizing Litigation
- Consumer-Focused Solutions for Financial Health
- Event: Consumer-Focused Solutions for Financial Health
- Sports: Power and Money in a New Age of Social Justice
- The Balancing Act: The Role of Whistleblowers in American Commerce and Government
- The Evolving and More Powerful FARA
- FCPA & Compliance in a Time of Uncertainty
- Shareholders vs. Stakeholders: Is the Paradigm Shifting?
- Guest Column
- Guest Blog: The Mainstream Media Gets an A for Intellectual Arrogance, an F for Journalism
- Buckle up Directors: Cybersecurity Risk and Bankruptcy Risk Are Not Mutually Exclusive
- Buckle up Directors: Cybersecurity Risk and Bankruptcy Risk Are Not Mutually Exclusive
- South Africa: The Slow Decline of the ANC
- Why CSR Fails and How to Fix It
- What to Expect Following the European Elections?
- Buhari Inaugurated. What Now for Nigeria?
- Marketing- It’s Up To You…
- Crisis Management lessons from the air-crash investigation model
- The Future of War
- Health
- Food Issues & the Biden Administration
- Covid-19: The Pandemic that Never Should Have Happened
- Pharma’s Post-Pandemic Policy Outlook
- Keeping Hope Alive
- Real Herd Immunity
- The Fiction of College Sports Amateurism
- Mac Summit: Crisis Communications in a Post-Covid, Post-Election World
- Travel Industry Communications in the Age of Covid-19
- Track of Time
- Is C-19 Taking Women Lawyers’ Careers Back to the 1950s?
- Post-Pandemic PR Strategy
- Bankruptcy: A Culture of Transparency
- In Memoriam
- Snider’s Super Foods: Locally World Famous
- Speak Truth With Love, Not Anger
- In Memoriam: Stephen Susman
- Letter to the Movement
- John Lewis’ Life Bridged the Best of America
- Albert Krieger, 1923-2020
- In Memoriam of Marcia Horowitz
- Jim Lehrer Passes Away
- Martin Luther King, Jr.
- Harold Burson Passes Away
- Interviews
- CommPRO: Ruth Bader Ginsberg’s Life & Legacy
- Richard Levick on “My Wakeup Call”
- Primerus Webinar: Into the Wind
- The Future of Baseball Post-Pandemic
- Webinar: The End of Brand Neutrality
- Thought Leadership & Organic Growth
- Man & Superman
- LEVICK Announces New Webinar Series with Turbine Labs
- Navigating Coronavirus Challenges in the Insurance Industry
- VIDEO: How to Anticipate & Avoid a Crisis
- What’s Next? with Julie Chase
- What’s Next?: California Electoral Behavior
- Law Firms
- Why Should I Apologize? Lawyers vs. Communicators
- You Took a PPP Loan. Now Get Ready to Talk About It.
- Beyond Black Swan: Positioning the law firm for the new normal
- A Salute to Personal Courage and the Rule of Law
- Cyber Risk Institute Expands Its Profile
- When a client becomes a law firm’s PR nightmare
- The General Counsel’s Dilemma
- A First Look at the Google Antitrust Suit
- The Latest Top Class Actions
- Trust on Trial: How Communicators Succeed in a World No Longer Trusted
- The Latest Settlements, Class actions, Investigations & More
- Managing Legal & Communication Advice in a Crisis
- Litigation
- Why Should I Apologize? Lawyers vs. Communicators
- A Conversation with Abbe Lowell
- Leveraging Legal Expertise in Communications
- You Took a PPP Loan. Now Get Ready to Talk About It.
- Beyond Black Swan: Positioning the law firm for the new normal
- A Salute to Personal Courage and the Rule of Law
- Cyber Risk Institute Expands Its Profile
- When a client becomes a law firm’s PR nightmare
- The General Counsel’s Dilemma
- WATCH: Revolutionizing Litigation Finance
- Litigation Finance: Revolutionizing Litigation
- A First Look at the Google Antitrust Suit
- Our Work
- Recent Awards & Recognition
- The Cyber Bad Guys Are Getting Worse
- Crisis Communications & The Age of Cancel Culture
- Standing on the Shoulders of Giants
- Video: Conversations with American Legends
- Staying Ahead of the Crisis
- A New Era of Insurance Marketing
- Infographic: Judgment Free Zone
- Infographic: Barriers to Entry
- Infographic: History Meter
- Assistance for Law Firms Engaged in Pro Bono
- Webinar: The End of Brand Neutrality
- Public Affairs
- The Fifth Estate: A Business Guide for Surviving “The Troubles”
- What to expect as the clock approaches midnight
- How to Stop the Madness
- Corporate Revolt Over Campaign Donations Shakes Political World
- No ‘justice’ in rep’s vote
- A Call for Orderly & Peaceful Transition of Power
- Recovering from the Greatest Sacrifice
- Food Issues & the Biden Administration
- The Cost of Government Regulation and the Threat to Free Enterprise
- What Happens Next?
- CSR & Sustainability
- A Conversation with Abbe Lowell
- Risk
- Ingredients of Decency
- ESG Performance and Credit Markets
- The Coronavirus Saga is Just Beginning
- No. 1 Risk of the Decade
- The Risk Evolution of Corporate Risk
- Extend Risk Management Reach
- Collective Action
- Risk Identifying Software
- The New Risk of Doing Nothing
- Political Unrest In Hong Kong
- High-Profile Kidnaps in African National Parks
- Cyber Resilience
- Social
- The Ministry of Common Sense
- How to Stop the Madness
- A Remembrance of Tommy Raskin
- No ‘justice’ in rep’s vote
- A Call for Orderly & Peaceful Transition of Power
- Recovering from the Greatest Sacrifice
- CSR & Sustainability
- A New Year’s Resolution
- Dropping the Mic
- Won’t You Be My Neighbor?
- Crisis, Covid, DEI & the Election
- MLK’s Memphis Address
- Technology
- Constella Intelligence Announces Hunter for Improved Investigation Capability
- Cyber Risk Institute Expands Its Profile
- Digital Politics: The Future of Voting Technology
- Ethics in Electronics
- The Cyber Bad Guys Are Getting Worse
- A First Look at the Google Antitrust Suit
- The Pause
- Cybersecurity Incidents of the Summer
- The Changing Digital Economy and Cyber Risks
- The Future of U.S. Manufacturing
- Tech CEO Summer Superbowl hearing
- Technology & Privacy Alert
- This Week
- A Remembrance of Tommy Raskin
- A New Year’s Resolution
- Over the River and Through The Woods
- Dropping the Mic
- Won’t You Be My Neighbor?
- The Cyber Bad Guys Are Getting Worse
- What We Hear
- Track of Time
- Video: Conversations with American Legends
- Conversations with American Legends
- A New Era of Insurance Marketing
- American Legend