Norm Ornstein is a political scientist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute in Washington, D.C.

It is almost impossible to separate Donald Trump the presidential candidate from Donald Trump the businessman and huckster—one whose name is synonymous with the many hotels, buildings, golf courses and products, including a university, he has licensed or purchased, a name he seems to value so highly that it alone makes up a huge share of the $10 billion net worth he claims.

Nor is Trump showing any signs even now—though he has the GOP nomination all but in hand and moves around with Secret Service protection—of giving up his active role in his businesses. On Wednesday, Trump announced he will travel to Scotland on June 24 to preside over the grand reopening of Trump Turnberry, the luxury golf resort that bears his name. No matter that he is going on the same day that the United Kingdom will find out the results of its referendum on whether to stay in the European Union, potentially a transformative event for Britain and the world, and one which, if Brexit occurs, will inexorably lead to a new move for Scottish independence. (Trump casually supports Brexit—against the wishes of British Prime Minister David Cameron, a stout U.S. ally—although at first, when asked about it, he appeared not to know what “Brexit” meant.)


Also this week, the day before his announcement that he’s going to Scotland for business, Trump used his presidential prominence to complain that the PGA Tour plans to move its WGC-Cadillac Championship from his Doral resort in Miami to Mexico City. “I hope they have kidnapping insurance,” he said in an appearance on Fox News.

Can Trump get away with this kind of behavior? Most federal offices, in the executive, legislative and judicial branches, have conflict-of-interest rules and laws that regulate and limit severely any actions taken in an official capacity or under the cover of an official position that are designed to deliver, or which result in, financial gain or promotion of private business activities (one exception is the Supreme Court, where behavior is self-regulated). Recall the many media questions about and investigations into whether Hillary Clinton used her office as secretary of state to promote the Clinton Global Initiative, not a private business but a charitable foundation.

According to the Congressional Research Service in 2005: “The principal federal conflict of interest law provides that an official who administers federal law should not take any official action on, or make recommendations concerning any particular governmental matter in which that official, or one closely associated with the official, has a personal ’financial interest.’” What that means is federal officials in the executive branch of government, other than the president and vice president, must generally “recuse” or disqualify themselves from participating in any particular governmental matter in which they have a financial interest, or in which their spouse, dependent children, partner, or business with which they are associated, has a financial interest.

But there are no such rules for presidential candidates. Instead, there are accepted norms of behavior along similar, common-sense lines: One should not use one’s public stature to promote private interests. Trump is now shattering all of those norms, mostly to the bemusement, not outrage, of the media.

Trump’s Scotland trip—in view of all the world—is particularly striking. It is not unusual for presidential candidates to travel abroad, including presidential nominees. Many do it to solidify their foreign policy credentials, to learn firsthand about key countries, and to meet and get to know important foreign leaders. For major party nominees, there can be an added benefit: foreign leaders unsure whether their guest might actually become president tend to be friendly and complimentary.

But in the case of Trump’s visit, this is not just a case of the use of a public position, that of a major party presidential nominee in the making, for private gain—including burnishing even further the Trump name as a marketing device. It is interfering in a major way with American foreign policy—which supports Cameron and his effort to keep Britain in the EU—and the delicate relationship between the United States and Britain, while potentially encouraging major international economic turmoil and creating a major rift with Cameron.

To be sure, Trump is not the first presidential candidate to create a stir on a trip abroad—including trips this cycle by Scott Walker and Bobby Jindal to Britain, where Walker had the state of Wisconsin pay over $138,000 for his trip and stumbled over questions on British policy, science and climate change, while Jindal created controversy by talking about fictional no-go zones in Muslim areas in London.

Trump is at least consistent about his motives and actions. In March, after Trump won primaries in Michigan and Mississippi, the candidate appeared at a Trump-branded golf course arrayed with tables displaying a range of Trump products—Trump steaks, Trump water, Trump wines, almost like the Dan Aykroyd “Saturday Night Live” parody of an infomercial for the Bass-O-Matic. Never mind that the steaks were actually from a Palm Beach company in which Trump has no ownership stake, and that the water came from a company that does private labeling for anyone who asks. This was Trump, once again, using his free airtime as a presidential candidate on the march to hawk his name to promote his business and business model.

Trump is now blowing up those models—as well as the presidential behavior model—in every way and in every direction, in keeping with his unprecedented and cringe-worthy presidential campaign. Trump is going abroad not to learn about other countries, to show his chops on foreign policy or to meet any leaders: He is going to leverage his name and promote his business. If he keeps it up, considering that the 500-plus entities listed by the Trump Organization are in dozens of countries, one can only imagine what presidential trips will be like under Donald Trump.

We knew even without President Obama saying it that Trump was causing heartburn for a large swath of foreign leaders (though not all; Kim Jong Un, Vladimir Putin and the Chinese hierarchy have said quite favorable things about him). And we know that it is possible that the commercial value of Trump’s name will suffer, not soar, with his bombastic and antagonistic behavior on the campaign trail, on Twitter and in news conferences. Indeed, there are reports of a drop-off in bookings at Trump hotels, not to mention the PGA’s Mexico move.

But that possibility is beside the point. A presidential candidate is using his position for personal financial gain, at potentially great costs to U.S. foreign policy and international relations. And yet the news about Trump’s Scotland trip barely caused a ripple. As Bob Dole famously said, “Where’s the outrage?”