The public trust which President-elect Trump sought and is accepting requires that he make sacrifices to minimize conflicts between his personal and family interests on the one hand, and those of the nation on the other.

Last week, Trump's two adult sons launched a new charity, the "Opening Day Foundation." "Opening Day" seems to carry two meanings in this foundation. It's a reference to the first day of hunting season, but also to their father's first full day as president, for the charity's banquet was scheduled for Jan. 21, the day after Trump is sworn in as America's 45th president.

The social media hashtag for the banquet in D.C. that night is #OpeningDay45, according to the invitation. The prize buck for "Opening Day" is the president himself. A $250,000 gift to the foundation would buy a donor a "private reception" with Trump.

Did the Trump brothers not notice the scandals created by the Clinton Foundation? The odious pay-to-play operation run by Hillary and Bill and their acolytes, the appearances of impropriety, the conflicts of interest? Or did Eric and Donald Jr. pay close attention and decide to use Hillary as their model?

After unfavorable press, the Trump boys have backed away from selling access to the president. But it's baffling or damning that they created a new foundation after the election that would raise donations from millionaires, billionaires and corporations. It's astonishing that anyone at the foundation thought it acceptable to sell access to the president.

It's another sign that Trump's inner circle don't yet understand the ethical, legal and political tripwires that the presidency creates, and the sacrifices that public service requires of them.

Two wealthy brothers using their fame to set up a hunting-conservation foundation is usually a fine thing. Raising money from rich people and corporations to fund these conservation efforts is great. But once their father becomes chief executive of the federal government, such an arrangement is a boiling mess of conflicts and opportunities for corruption.

President-elect Trump himself seems not to grasp the broader problem of conflicts and access-selling. At the end of November, he promised a mid-December press conference in which he would explain how he would mitigate conflicts caused by his businesses. Then he postponed the press conference.

Did he think this was a small matter? Did he see it as a media freakout like all the other media freakouts he outlasted? There's evidence he did: "Prior to the election," Trump tweeted a few days before promising the press conference, "it was well known that I have interests in properties all over the world. Only the crooked media makes this a big deal!"

The first part of that tweet is correct. He was elected by voters who knew he had big business holdings and who he'd told would be put under the management of his children. They still voted for him, and elections are a cleansing agent for what is promised in the campaign.

But the second part of the tweet is not true. His business interests and the conflicts they create are a big deal irrespective of media commentary.

Maybe Trump will roll out a simple way to extricate himself from conflicts, but that seems unlikely. More likely is that the president-elect does not know what difficulties lie ahead and is convinced that none exist.

But if Trump keeps his name on all of his hotels worldwide, it is inevitable that foreign businessmen, politicians, sultans or tyrants will feel pressure, incentive or both to patronize "his" hotels. They may expect something in return from the federal government.

If he continues to receive payments from foreign governmental bodies, such as the Industrial and Commercial Bank of China, a tenant at Trump Tower, will the 45th president feel any pressure to help the agency? Will any underling, in the White House, in a Cabinet agency or in an embassy, get carried away and lean on some business to do business with Trump? Finally, will his sons continue selling access to the president?

Conflicts of interest are serious stuff — just ask Hillary Clinton, whose failure to police them contributed to her crushing defeat last month. Government ethics are complex stuff. Trump seems not to appreciate that yet. If he doesn't get straight on this matter, he will run headfirst in an ethical, legal and political minefield, and some of the most obvious damage will be to his effectiveness as president.