Jessica Estepa

USA TODAY

There's an art to coming up with legislation acronyms. The best known may be the USA PATRIOT (Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism) Act. And never forget the ACRONYM (Accountability and Congressional Responsibility On Naming Your Motions) Act.

The latest to be added to the list: the No Taxpayer Revenue Used to Monetize the Presidency Act, otherwise known as the No TRUMP Act.

The bill, introduced Thursday by Rep. Earl Blumenauer, D-Ore., would prohibit the use of taxpayer dollars to pay for events, overnight stays, food or other expenses at hotels owned or operated by a president or his relatives.

Blumenauer said he's long been concerned about Trump's refusal to divest his ownership stake in the Trump Organization. The issues have become more evident with reports of taxpayers footing bills for Secret Service and embassy officials to travel with Trump's children on a business trip and as government officials spend time at Trump facilities.

"It's a very real problem that he's further enriching his enterprises," Blumenauer said.

Read more:

Trump won't drop ownership of business

Though the name of the bill is clearly a reference to the current president, it would apply to anyone who holds the office. Such a check doesn't currently exist within the government, the congressman said — but that's because it hasn't been necessary. Most recent presidents put their assets in blind trusts, and everyone who has been elected to the presidency in the past four decades released their tax returns.

Given that both the House and Senate are controlled by Republicans and Trump himself would have to sign the legislation into law, it's unlikely that anything will come of the No TRUMP Act.

But while the bill may not receive a lot of initial support from GOP lawmakers, Blumenauer said he thinks that could change down the line.

"I think it's entirely possible that under bizarre circumstances, the combination of public concern and political unease may grow," he said. "I believe this would be broadly supported... And if something happens that galvanizes public attention, we have something that is ready to go."