This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/19/us/politics/trump-doral-g7.html

The article has changed 6 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
After Criticism, Trump to Select New Location for G7 After Criticism, Trump to Select New Location for G7
(32 minutes later)
WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Saturday that he would no longer be holding next year’s Group of 7 summit at his luxury golf club near Miami, citing what he said was “irrational” criticism that the choice would enrich his family business. WASHINGTON — President Trump said on Saturday that he would no longer be holding next year’s Group of 7 meeting at his luxury golf club near Miami, a swift reversal after two days of intense criticism over awarding his family company a major diplomatic event.
“I thought I was doing something very good for our country by using Trump National Doral, in Miami, for hosting the G-7 leaders,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter on Saturday, before again promoting the resort’s amenities. “But, as usual, the hostile media & Democrat partners went CRAZY!”“I thought I was doing something very good for our country by using Trump National Doral, in Miami, for hosting the G-7 leaders,” Mr. Trump wrote on Twitter on Saturday, before again promoting the resort’s amenities. “But, as usual, the hostile media & Democrat partners went CRAZY!”
Mr. Trump added: “Therefore, based on both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility, we will no longer consider Trump National Doral, Miami, as the Host Site for the G-7 in 2020.”Mr. Trump added: “Therefore, based on both Media & Democrat Crazed and Irrational Hostility, we will no longer consider Trump National Doral, Miami, as the Host Site for the G-7 in 2020.”
Mr. Trump also said that White House officials would begin searching for another site, adding that Camp David, where the United States last hosted the meeting, would be a possibility. The decision to host the Group of 7 at Mr. Trump’s club was first announced by Mick Mulvaney, the president’s acting chief of staff, during a news briefing on Thursday at the White House, but Mr. Trump had hinted that the resort would be a possibility for months. Still, the plan drew the immediate ire of ethics lawyers and Democrats who said it could violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which forbids accepting gifts and funding from foreign governments.
Mr. Trump came under heavy criticism for essentially awarding himself a contract for a major diplomatic event, and drew the ire of ethics lawyers and Democrats who said the choice could violate the emoluments clause of the Constitution, which forbids accepting gifts and funding from foreign governments. The White House stressed that Mr. Trump would not stand to profit personally from the event — Mr. Mulvaney said the event could be held “at cost,” meaning that Mr. Trump would not make money — but the Doral would still have received a large amount of free publicity simply by hosting the summit.
An event with the size and scope of the Group of 7, which the White House had initially planned for next June, would have brought a cash windfall to the Doral and the surrounding area in South Florida, which has high vacancy rates at that time of year. The economic boost can be significant: A study by the University of Toronto in 2010 estimated that the summit, held that year as the Group of 8 in Huntsville, Ontario, could bring the area $300 million in immediate benefits.
The Doral has struggled financially since the Trump family bought the resort out of bankruptcy in 2012, reportedly paying $150 million for the property. More than $100 million in loans to help finance the project came from Deutsche Bank.
Democrats in the House and Senate quickly introduced legislation intended to block the use of the Doral, a bill they called “Trump’s Heist Undermines the G7,” or Thug Act. The legislation would have blocked the use of federal funds for the Group of 7 if the event were held at the Doral.
“Mr. Trump is unashamed of his corruption,” said Representative Lois Frankel, Democrat of Florida, said in a statement Friday. “He is abusing the office of the presidency and violating law by directing millions of dollars of American and foreign money to his family enterprises by holding an important meeting of world leaders at his Doral resort.”
Lawyers who have served in both Republican and Democratic administrations objected to the move, including several who emphasized that even though Mr. Trump, as president, is exempt from a federal conflict of interest statute, his role in the matter was improper.
“It stinks,” said Charles Fried, a Harvard law professor who served as solicitor general under President Ronald Reagan. “It is so completely blatant.”
Some Republicans in Congress also questioned Mr. Trump’s move.
“In the law, there’s a canon that says, avoid the appearance of impropriety,” Representative Francis Rooney, Republican of Florida, told reporters on Friday, adding, “I think that would be better if he would not use his hotel for this kind of stuff.”
Former White House officials expressed shock that Mr. Trump would consider hosting an event that would enrich his family, and suggested that the choice would have also posed immediate ethical concerns for the world leaders invited to the summit next year.
“The appearance of impropriety and self-enrichment will likely be troubling to at least some G7 leaders,” said Daniel M. Price, who helped organize the summits for President George W. Bush. “If I were still the U.S. sherpa and the president was invited to attend a summit at a business resort owned by the foreign leader host, my first question would be to White House counsel about whether ethics rules would permit the president to attend.”
The president’s reversal adds another layer to a process that appeared to flout longstanding State Department guidelines for vetting diplomatic event venues — Mr. Mulvaney said the idea for Doral was thought up in the White House dining room. Still, Mr. Mulvaney said aides created a short list of about a dozen sites, and narrowed it down to three possibilities in Hawaii and Utah.
Local officials in those states said they were never notified that the White House was scouting for venues for a major event. A spokeswoman for Gary Herbert, the Republican governor of Utah, said that officials did not know that the White House had considered two locations in the state for the Group of 7. And a spokeswoman for David Ige, the Democratic governor of Hawaii, said they determined that the White House was looking for locations only after the fact.
“No specific facility was considered,” said Cindy McMillan, Mr. Ige’s communications director. “The White House was confirming capabilities and looking at hotels that fit the security and meeting space requirements.”
And Juan Carlos Bermudez, the mayor of Doral, Fla., said Saturday night that no one from the White House called to tell him that the president had changed his mind.
“I would have liked to have been notified. But they didn’t,” he said, adding that he learned from a news report.
Mr. Bermudez, who was not notified of Mr. Trump’s original decision to host the Group of 7 at the Doral, either, expressed disappointment that the city would no longer be able to showcase itself to the world.
“He has to do what he has to do. We respect that. We would love to have hosted it in Doral,” he said. “It is the administration’s decision. Not ours. It is beyond our purview. Hopefully they will find another site “
The city was just starting to formally plan for the event, he added, with meetings with federal government officials set for next week.
“Somebody else will have to deal with that,” he said.
Even without the Group of 7 at Trump Doral in Florida, the president has visited at one of his resorts, golf clubs or hotels a total of 308 days since he was sworn in — about a third of his tenure as president. On Saturday, Mr. Trump said that other locations, including Camp David, would be considered.