Politics
The laws exist. The DOJ that enforces them reports to the president. The IGs that oversee agencies can be fired by the president. Civil asset forfeiture funds operate outside normal congressional appropriations. Congress has political incentives against accountability. The Founders assumed good faith. Good faith is not a law.
NewsOnScale Staff
September 20, 2026
The laws exist. The statutes are on the books. The ethical frameworks are documented. Constitutional scholars across the political spectrum will tell you that a president cannot simply redirect federal funds to himself, his family, or his allies without consequences.
What they will not always tell you is that the enforcement of those laws depends almost entirely on the people those laws are supposed to constrain.
That is the structural problem at the center of American executive branch accountability — and it is more serious than most Americans realize.
The Laws That Are Supposed to Stop It
The Foreign Emoluments Clause of the Constitution prohibits federal officeholders from accepting payments from foreign governments without congressional consent.
The Domestic Emoluments Clause prohibits a president from receiving any emolument from the United States or any state beyond his fixed compensation.
The Anti-Kickback Statute prohibits federal officials from accepting payments in exchange for official acts.
Federal bribery statutes — 18 U.S.C. Section 201 — prohibit public officials from accepting anything of value in exchange for being influenced in the performance of official duties.
The False Claims Act creates civil liability for those who defraud the federal government.
These laws are real. They carry serious penalties. They look comprehensive on paper.
Why They Do Not Work the Way They Should
The DOJ problem: Federal criminal statutes are enforced by the Department of Justice. The DOJ is headed by the Attorney General. The Attorney General is appointed by and serves at the pleasure of the president. A president who wanted to use federal funds or civil asset forfeiture proceeds for improper purposes would be relying on his own appointee to investigate and prosecute him.
That is not a theoretical problem. It is a structural one baked into the constitutional design — a design that assumed good faith actors at the top of the executive branch.
The Inspector General problem: The Inspector General system was created to provide independent oversight of federal agencies. In 2020 President Trump fired multiple Inspectors General in a single week. The firings were legal. IGs serve at the pleasure of the president despite their nominally independent function.
The Civil Asset Forfeiture problem: The DOJ Assets Forfeiture Fund contains billions of dollars seized from Americans — money that flows into a fund managed by the DOJ with limited real-time congressional visibility. The Attorney General has significant discretion over how those funds are deployed. A DOJ under political pressure from an administration interested in those funds has significant latitude before any oversight mechanism could respond.
The congressional oversight problem: When the president's party controls one or both chambers of Congress the tools of oversight are rarely deployed against a president of the same party. The political incentives work against accountability rather than for it.
What the Documented Record Shows
In 2021 Jared Kushner left the White House. Months later the Saudi Public Investment Fund committed $2 billion to Kushner's newly formed private equity firm. The investment was documented and public. Whether it was connected to decisions Kushner made while serving as a senior White House advisor has not been proven in court. The appearance of a connection is documented.
The current president maintains over 500 business entities across multiple countries. He made 3,600 stock trades in a single quarter of 2026 totaling over $100 million in volume according to the Office of Government Ethics. CNN analysis identified multiple instances where he posted flattering messages about companies shortly before purchasing their stock. The trust managing his business interests is run by his sons — not an independent trustee.
None of this has resulted in a criminal prosecution. The DOJ reports to the president. Congress went home for the midterms.
The Civil Asset Forfeiture Connection
The DOJ Assets Forfeiture Fund grew from $93.7 million in 1986 to $4.5 billion in 2014 — a 5,000 percent increase in 28 years. Between 2000 and 2019 the Justice Department paid out over $9 billion to state and local law enforcement through equitable sharing.
These funds operate outside normal congressional appropriations. They are managed by the DOJ. The attorney general has significant discretion over their deployment.
A president who wanted to direct those funds toward favored entities or purposes would face oversight mechanisms that are slower, weaker, and more politically dependent than the public typically understands.
What Accountability Would Actually Require
An independent prosecutor with permanent statutory authority to investigate the president and senior executive officials — not a special counsel appointed and removable by the attorney general.
An Inspector General system with genuine independence — fixed terms, removal only for cause, and authority to publish findings without executive branch approval.
Real-time congressional visibility into civil asset forfeiture fund expenditures — not annual reports reviewed after the fact.
A blind trust requirement with genuine independence — not a family trust managed by the president's children.
Mandatory public financial disclosure covering all business entities, all stock trades, and all financial relationships with foreign governments in real time — not annual disclosures filed months after the fact.
None of these exist in their full form. All of them have been proposed. None have passed.
The Honest Summary
The laws are real. The enforcement mechanisms are real. The structural vulnerabilities are also real.
A president who chose to enrich himself, his family, or his allies using taxpayer money, civil asset forfeiture funds, or foreign government payments would face legal risk — but only if the DOJ he controls chose to prosecute him, only if the IGs he can fire chose to investigate him, only if the Congress controlled in part by his party chose to hold hearings, and only if the courts chose to find standing and rule against him.
That is a lot of only ifs. The Founders assumed good faith. Good faith is not a law.
DISCLOSURE: NewsOnScale is an independent media publication owned and operated by AMILLI AI CORP. JJ Johnson is the founder of AMILLI AI CORP and a declared candidate for President of the United States in 2028. All facts in this article are drawn from the Office of Government Ethics, the Institute for Justice, the Washington Post, CNN, the Department of Justice Asset Forfeiture Program annual reports, and publicly available federal statutes and constitutional provisions.