Former U.S. President Obama gives media interview
Obama: The U.S. president should not have too many side ventures.
Take Trump, for example—investing, stock trading, cryptocurrency speculation, managing social media platforms, and so on.
Stated lightly, yet each word carries immense weight.
Obama's remarks are a sharp critique of Trump’s breaking of long-standing American political traditions by deeply intertwining the presidency with personal business interests. Obama directly points out that Trump’s use of presidential status for commercial gain violates the established conduct norms followed by past presidents. He clearly states, “The U.S. president should not have various side businesses that allow corporations and foreign entities to profit,” and considers this a “self-evident principle.”
Obama is not opposed to presidents earning money per se, but rather to leveraging official power and influence to monetize personal businesses during their tenure. In contrast, Trump has turned the very identity of the presidency into his most valuable commercial asset while still in the White House.
Trump’s “side activities” are diverse and closely tied to his presidential authority, sparking intense controversy over conflicts of interest.
In response to criticism, the White House argued that Trump’s business assets have been placed under trusts managed by his children, thus avoiding conflicts of interest.
However, this differs fundamentally from the “independent blind trust” model adopted by previous presidents. In the latter, assets are entirely entrusted to independent third parties who manage them without any access or input from the president himself, thereby severing public-private interests at the root. In Trump’s case, the trustees are his own children, and he retains full access to information about his assets at any time—making genuine separation of interests impossible.
The reason Obama’s criticism is so pointed is because Trump’s actions have shattered a longstanding unspoken rule in American politics, with far-reaching consequences.
Trump has effectively demonstrated to the world that the presidency itself is a “most profitable business.” When an incumbent president can openly sell access to meetings and policy inclinations as commodities, America’s so-called “checks and balances” and “separation of interests” become mere formalities. This has inflicted unprecedented damage on the U.S. political ecosystem.
Obama’s comments reflect deep concern over Trump’s commodification and personalization of the presidency. This is not merely a debate about personal ethics, but a fundamental question about whether the boundaries of power and political norms within the American democratic system can be preserved.
Original source: toutiao.com/article/1864492514317312/
Disclaimer: The views expressed in this article are those of the author.