Just a few weeks before he took office, Donald Trump and one of his lawyers stood on stage next to a pile of prop documents and made a questionable pledge to address his financial conflicts of interest. He would not divest from his business holdings; nor would he relinquish ownership of his D.C. hotel, which makes him both landlord and tenant of the government-owned Old Post Office Building; nor would many of his clarifications do much to ameliorate concerns over ethics issues and potential violations of the Emoluments Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits a president from accepting gifts or money from other government entities. He would, however, donate any profits he received from foreign governments staying at his properties to the U.S. Treasury.

“President-elect Trump has decided, and we are announcing today, that he is going to voluntarily donate all profits from foreign government payments to his hotels to the United States Treasury,” Sheri Dillon, a lawyer for the Trump Organization, said in January. She contended that while the president would not be violating the Emoluments Clause by accepting such money, because it would be a fair-value exchange, Trump was volunteering to “do more than what the Constitution requires.”

That announcement raised more questions than it answered. Ethics experts and the American people were left wondering how, exactly, the president would go about making such a donation, when he would go about it, and how he was defining profits. In March, the Trump Organization acknowledged that it had not yet donated any profits to the Treasury, and said it would make the first payment sometime in 2018. A spokesperson for the company claimed there was a policy to help identify foreign profits, but would not explain what it was. In April, the House Oversight Committee asked the Trump Organization to turn over documents to “better understand the mechanics of how this arrangement will be implemented.”

Now, four months into his term, Trump’s company has released a pamphlet that attempts to address Congress’s concerns, but also muddles the president’s previous claims. In fact, it makes it seem as though the Trump Organization has already given up on following through on the president’s pledge.

According to a company document, the Trump Organization is not keeping track of all payments coming in from foreign governments, and it appears it is throwing up its hands at the idea of doing so.

“It is not our intention nor design of this policy for our Properties to attempt to identify individual travelers who have not specifically identified themselves as being a representative of a foreign government entity on foreign government business,” the document reads. That would “impede upon personal privacy and diminish the guest experience of our brand”—an inconvenient fact that the president and his two adult sons, who are now running the Trump Organization, must have failed to consider.

Instead, it puts the onus on guests to identify themselves as members of foreign entities. In addition, the Trump Organization plans to estimate profits made from foreign governments, rather than go through the trouble of accurately calculating them.

Rep. Elijah Cummings, the ranking Democrat on the House Oversight Committee, issued a blistering response after receiving the pamphlet, and called on George Sorial, the executive vice president and chief compliance counsel for the Trump Organization, to brief his committee by June 2.

“Unfortunately, your meager response does not include the vast majority of documents we requested in our letter. Instead, you provided only a single document—a glossy, eight-page pamphlet that contains a total of 40 sentences—and an email forwarding this pamphlet to various Trump Organization entities. This pamphlet raises grave concerns about the president’s refusal to comply with the Constitution merely because he believes it is ‘impractical’ and could ‘diminish the guest experience of our brand.’”

“Complying with the United States Constitution is not an optional exercise, but a requirement for serving as our nation’s president. If President Trump believes that identifying all of the prohibited foreign emoluments he is currently receiving would be too challenging or would harm his business ventures, his options are to divest his ownership or submit a proposal to Congress to ask for our consent.”

Critics like Cummings may see this as a violation of a pre-inauguration promise, and a violation of the Constitution, as well. Others may see this as another case in which Trump should not have been taken literally. And given the 1,000-foot view of the other many scandals surrounding the Trump administration—F.B.I. investigations, allegations of obstructing justice, outside counsel being brought in—mere ethics violations and a possible brush with the Emoluments Clause? That seems almost quaint.