By Chuck Gallagher — Business Ethics Keynote Speaker and Trainer
The Brennan Center for Justice reports that the president is exempt from many basic ethics rules that apply to every other federal employee — including conflict-of-interest restrictions — and that gaps in federal law make profiteering from public office largely legal. Chuck Gallagher, business ethics keynote speaker, argues the real question isn’t who’s exploiting the loopholes but why the people with the power to close them have zero incentive to do so. When the people writing the rules are the same people benefiting from the gaps, the result is predictable — and it has been for decades, regardless of party.
Here’s a question I’ve never heard a satisfying answer to, and I’ve been asking it for thirty years: why would anyone elected to public office vote to limit their own ability to profit from that office? Most executive branch employees are prohibited from participating in government matters that directly affect their personal finances. The president is exempt from that rule. Most federal employees cannot accept gifts from people or companies with a financial interest in their work. The president is exempt from that rule too. The Hatch Act bans executive branch employees from engaging in political activity while on duty. The president is exempt. Every meaningful ethics restriction that governs the people who work in the executive branch stops at the one person with the most power to direct government action.
The Brennan Center for Justice published a detailed analysis of these exemptions, and the picture it paints is not about one administration. It’s about a structural failure that has been building across administrations of both parties for decades. The question isn’t who’s exploiting the gaps. The question is why the gaps exist at all — and who benefits from keeping them open.
Why Do Ethics Laws Stay Weak When Everyone Claims to Support Reform?
As a business ethics keynote speaker who has spent three decades studying how institutions create the conditions for ethical failure, I recognize this pattern immediately. It’s identical to what I see in every organization where the people responsible for enforcing the rules are also the people most constrained by them. The rules get written with enough loopholes to look enforceable in a press release while remaining practically meaningless in operation.
Consider the bipartisan Presidential Ethics Reform Act, introduced by Representative James Comer and Representative Katie Porter. Comer himself said it was designed to ensure that “presidents, vice presidents, and their family members cannot profit from their proximity to power.” The bill would require disclosure of foreign payments, expensive gifts, loan transactions, and tax returns during and after time in office. It has bipartisan sponsors. Comer called it “common-sense ethics reform” and said he couldn’t imagine anyone opposing it. And yet it hasn’t become law. That gap between bipartisan agreement and legislative action tells you everything you need to know about the incentive structure. When both sides agree the rules need fixing and neither side fixes them, the rules aren’t broken by accident. They’re broken by design.
How Many Channels Exist for Money to Reach Those in Power?
The Brennan Center’s analysis catalogs the channels, and the sheer number of them is what makes the problem systemic rather than individual. Inaugural committees can accept unlimited funds from corporations and private donors with almost no restrictions — the most recent inaugural raised more than $245 million, including large donations from Big Tech, cryptocurrency companies, pharmaceutical firms, and fossil fuel interests, all of which face government regulation. Presidential library funds accept unlimited private donations with virtually no restrictions on who gives or how much, and money can flow in while the president is still in office — the current library fund has already received more than $50 million, including settlements from companies resolving personal lawsuits with the administration. Super PACs, thanks to the Citizens United decision, allow wealthy donors to pump limitless funds into the political system. Even companies holding billions in government contracts can spend unlimited money on elections.
And then there’s the current innovation: a privately funded White House ballroom construction project that has reportedly raised $400 million, with many donors allowed to remain anonymous despite holding billions in government contracts. Each of these channels — inaugural committees, library funds, super PACs, legal defense funds, and now construction projects — operates in a space that is either entirely unregulated or regulated so loosely that the restrictions function more as suggestions than boundaries. No single channel is the problem. The accumulation of all of them, operating simultaneously, with no independent enforcement mechanism, is the problem.
This Is a System Problem, Not a Party Problem
What makes this discussion uncomfortable for partisans on both sides is that the pattern is bipartisan. President Clinton famously pardoned financier Marc Rich, whose ex-wife had donated $450,000 to Clinton’s library foundation. The erosion of campaign finance rules that culminated in Citizens United unfolded across administrations of both parties. Congressional members of both parties trade stocks based on information gained through their official duties, use the revolving door to lobbying careers, and accept campaign donations from industries they regulate. The current administration is extreme in scale — the Brennan Center documents an estimated $3 billion in personal business earnings since January 2025 — but the loopholes being used were dug by predecessors of both parties over decades.
As an AI ethics speaker and author who works with organizations on governance and accountability, I apply the same test to public institutions that I apply to corporate boards: if your ethics framework depends on voluntary compliance by the most powerful person in the organization, you don’t have an ethics framework. You have a suggestion box. George Mason warned at the Constitutional Convention in 1787 that “if we do not provide against corruption, our government will soon be at an end.” The Founders understood the incentive problem. They built the Emoluments Clauses as a structural safeguard. But they left enforcement to Congress — a body that would eventually face its own version of the same temptation. The question for the American public is not whether any particular official is profiting from weak ethics laws. It’s whether a system in which the regulated parties write their own rules can ever produce real accountability. Every organization I’ve worked with that tried that approach learned the answer the hard way.
Frequently Asked Questions
Is the president subject to the same ethics rules as other federal employees?
No. According to the Brennan Center for Justice, the president is exempt from many basic ethics rules that apply to other executive branch employees, including restrictions on participating in government matters that directly affect personal finances, rules prohibiting gifts from regulated entities, and the Hatch Act’s ban on political activity while on duty. This means the person with the most power to direct government action operates under fewer ethical constraints than the federal employees who work for them.
What are the Emoluments Clauses and can they prevent profiteering?
The Constitution contains two Emoluments Clauses. The Foreign Emoluments Clause bars all federal officials from accepting gifts or payments from foreign governments without congressional consent. The Domestic Emoluments Clause bars the president from receiving benefits from Congress or the states beyond their salary. However, enforcement depends on Congress or the courts taking action. Lawsuits challenging potential violations during the first Trump administration were dismissed on procedural grounds without reaching the merits, leaving considerable doubt about whether any mechanism exists to enforce these provisions without federal legislation.
What is the Presidential Ethics Reform Act?
The Presidential Ethics Reform Act is bipartisan legislation introduced by Representative James Comer (R-Ky.) and Representative Katie Porter (D-Ca.) that would require presidents and vice presidents to disclose foreign payments, expensive gifts, loan transactions, and tax returns during office and for two years after leaving. Chuck Gallagher, business ethics keynote speaker, notes that despite bipartisan sponsors and Comer calling it “common-sense ethics reform,” the bill has not become law — illustrating the structural incentive problem in which legislators benefit from the same gaps they publicly acknowledge need closing.
How do inaugural committees, presidential libraries, and super PACs create ethics risks?
Each operates in a space that is either unregulated or minimally regulated. Inaugural committees accept unlimited corporate and private donations — the most recent inaugural raised over $245 million from industries facing regulation. Presidential library funds accept unlimited donations while the president is still in office. Super PACs accept unlimited money from donors, including companies with billions in government contracts, and are supposed to operate independently from candidates but often work closely with them. The cumulative effect of these channels operating simultaneously creates a system where money can flow to those in power from nearly any source with minimal disclosure or restriction.
Why haven’t federal ethics laws been strengthened despite bipartisan support for reform?
The fundamental obstacle is an incentive problem: the people with the power to close ethics loopholes are the same people who benefit from them remaining open. Members of Congress face their own conflicts, including stock trading on nonpublic information, revolving-door lobbying careers, and campaign donations from regulated industries. When both parties agree that reform is needed but neither enacts it, the gap between rhetoric and action reflects a system in which the regulated parties write and enforce their own rules — a structure that rarely produces meaningful accountability in any institution, public or private.
I’d like to hear your honest take on this. Do you believe meaningful ethics reform at the federal level is possible when the people who would be constrained by it are the ones who have to vote for it? And if not Congress, who has the standing and the incentive to force the change? Share your perspective in the comments at ChuckGallagher.com. And if this piece sharpened your thinking, consider the five questions below.
Related Articles:
Minority Report Ethics: Could We Predict the Next Corporate Scandal Before It Happens?
Ethics Is the Compass for Business in a Complex World
From Content to Conversion: How AI-Generated Articles Become Trust, Leads, and Revenue
