In December 2016, Democratic senators
Elizabeth Warren,
Dick Durbin,
Chris Coons,
Ben Cardin, and
Jeff Merkley introduced a bill that would require the
president of the United States to divest any assets that could raise a
conflict of interest, including a statement that failure to divest such assets would constitute
high crimes and misdemeanors "under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution".
[3] Vanity Fair characterized this as a preemptive effort to lay the groundwork for a future impeachment argument.
[3] Concerns had previously been expressed that Trump's extensive business and real estate dealings, especially with respect to government agencies in other countries, may violate the
Foreign Emoluments Clause of the
Constitution,
[4] sparking debate as to whether that is the case.
[11][12]
Immediately after
his inauguration,
The Independent and
The Washington Post each reported on efforts already underway to impeach Trump, based on what the organizers regard as conflicts of interest arising from Trump's ability to use his political position to promote the interests of "Trump"-branded businesses, and ongoing payments by foreign entities to businesses within the Trump business empire as a violation of the Foreign Emoluments Clause.
[1][2] In March 2017, China provisionally granted 38 "Trump" trademark applications set to take permanent effect in 90 days, which were noted to come in close proximity to the president's making policy decisions favorable to China.
[13]