By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Donald Trump stated that he would personally make the decision on whether the government should pay him damages related to past federal investigations, including the Mar-a-Lago search and the Russia investigation. Trump has filed administrative claims seeking approximately $230 million under the Federal Tort Claims Act, which typically involves career officials, although Trump allies now hold key positions within the Justice Department. Trump has stated that he is “suing himself” and may donate any awarded proceeds, despite the unusual nature of a sitting president seeking compensation for investigations into his own conduct. Legal experts suggest these claims are unlikely to succeed due to the nature of the investigations and a statute that is not intended for such circumstances.
Read the original article here
Trump says he has final say on paying himself $230m for past investigations, which raises the immediate question: can a president simply decide to allocate taxpayer dollars to themselves? The very notion seems to fly in the face of established norms and, frankly, common sense.
The crux of the matter is this: Trump declared he has the ultimate authority on whether or not his administration should pay him damages stemming from past federal investigations. He apparently believes he’s the final word, and that any decision would need his personal approval. This sets the stage for a scenario where public funds could be directed towards his own personal enrichment, an outcome that’s frankly astonishing.
Consider the amount: $230 million. Think about the scale of what that money could achieve if used for public benefit. It could fund essential programs, infrastructure projects, or support struggling communities. Instead, the implication is that this vast sum could potentially be diverted for his own personal gain, feeding into a perception of the presidency as a tool for self-dealing.
This situation isn’t just about the money; it’s about the erosion of trust and the potential normalization of corruption. If a president can effectively pay himself from public coffers, what’s to stop similar actions in the future? Where does this lead us? It challenges the very foundations of accountability and the principles of good governance.
The fact that Trump seemingly views this as his money is alarming. It’s a statement that suggests a fundamental misunderstanding of the role of a president, who is meant to serve the public, not plunder the treasury. The potential for conflicts of interest here is undeniable, raising questions about the fairness and integrity of the process.
The legal and ethical implications are huge. The system wasn’t designed for a situation where a president is the “private citizen” and in control of both sides of a potential payment agreement. How can this be allowed to continue? The Department of Justice is supposed to be an independent entity. So how can the situation be allowed to continue, given that Trump essentially controls both sides of the transaction?
It’s a chilling prospect. It’s hard to imagine anyone could have foreseen this, but that’s not an excuse. There are many checks and balances in place, but that all falls apart if a president is the one who controls these processes.
This situation raises serious questions about the safeguards in place to protect against such abuses of power. It begs the question: if the president controls both sides of the transaction, who has standing to challenge it? Is Congress powerless, or should it use its power to remove the President from office, as a remedy?
Trump’s control over the situation is the most concerning factor. This essentially means he’s now above the law. In effect, the president has become a king, in terms of his control and power.
This also seems like an attempt to use the office for his personal gain, as though the presidency is a personal inheritance, or an exploitable scheme. It makes one wonder: what are the limits? What’s to stop him from taking even larger sums?