A spokeswoman for the G.S.A. came right back and said no, it hadn’t.

“GSA does not have a position that the lease provision requires the President-elect to divest of his financial interests. We can make no definitive statement at this time about what would constitute a breach of the agreement, and to do so now would be premature. In fact, no determination regarding the Old Post Office can be completed until the full circumstances surrounding the President-elect’s business arrangements have been finalized and he has assumed office.”

That is quite a different characterization than the one House Democrats gave. They wrote:

“G.S.A. assesses that Mr. Trump will be in breach of the lease agreement the moment he takes office on Jan. 20, 2017, unless he fully divests himself of all financial interests in the lease for the Washington, D.C., hotel. The deputy commissioner made clear that Mr. Trump must divest himself not only of managerial control, but of all ownership interest as well.”

The problem is fairly straightforward. Mr. Trump will soon be in charge of the agency that issued the lease for the Old Post Office Building, which the president-elect transformed unto a luxury hotel. He will also appoint the head of the G.S.A. To avoid such an obvious conflict, the lease that Mr. Trump signed states: “No … elected official of the government of the United States … shall be admitted to any share or part of this lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom[.]”

No word yet from Mr. Trump about how he will proceed. Not even the G.S.A.’s deputy commissioner of public building services has heard a peep in response.

“In fact, the deputy commissioner informed our staffs that the G.S.A. has received no communications to date from Mr. Trump’s business organization about this issue. This raises serious questions about how Mr. Trump plans to proceed.”

But the G.S.A. is not exactly saying all is fine with the hotel. More like, let’s wait until Mr. Trump is actually sworn in.

Could Trump’s national security adviser be denied a security clearance?

Two Democratic senators are raising a new issue about Lt. Gen. Michael T. Flynn, Mr. Trump’s choice for national security adviser: They are questioning whether he should be allowed to hold a security clearance, citing past investigations into charges that Mr. Flynn leaked classified information and into potential conflicts presented by a private intelligence firm he owns.

His business, the Flynn Intel Group, has hazy ties to Middle Eastern countries and has appeared to lobby for the Turkish government, and that “creates potential for pressure, coercion and exploitation by foreign agents,” the two senators, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut and Jeanne Shaheen of New Hampshire, said in a letter to the Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence and the Office of Personnel Management.