NEW YORK—During the first Trump administration, a White House adviser once made a controversial statement on television, urging viewers to “buy Ivanka stuff,” which prompted immediate action from top government lawyers. They noted a breach of ethics rules and issued a stern warning to prevent recurrence. While perspectives differ on the adequacy of the reaction to Kellyanne Conway’s 2017 statement, many experts concur that similar breaches today might not even warrant an official reprimand.
Recently, shortly after President Donald Trump transformed the White House lawn into a promotional venue for Tesla, a second sales plug emerged, this time for Tesla stock. U.S. Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick confidently stated, “It will never be this cheap,” followed by an endorsement to “Buy Tesla.” Ethics experts assert that Lutnick contravened a law from 1989 that prohibits federal employees from using “public office for private gain,” specifically prohibiting endorsements. Although presidents are usually exempt from such rules, most federal workers are not and often face disciplinary actions for violations. As of Friday, Lutnick had faced no public sanctions, and the potential consequences remained uncertain.
Critics, such as Richard Painter, a former White House ethics official and outspoken Trump critic, suspect a lack of concern for ethical standards among current administration officials. Painter also expressed doubt over public interest as an effective check on future violations. During his first term, Trump’s ventures, including hotel openings and offers to host international summits at his golf resorts, sparked debates about breaches of ethical norms and constitutional bans on foreign gifts.
The “Buy Ivanka” incident set a precedent when Conway’s television remarks triggered a notable response from the Office of Government Ethics, highlighting potential legal breaches and urging a White House investigation. However, the current absence of a head at the Office of Government Ethics poses challenges for enforcing accountability in similar cases, like that of Lutnick. Organizations such as the Campaign Legal Center have urged the government to investigate, warning that unaddressed violations could lead to a broader pattern of unethical endorsements by officials, potentially fostering corruption.
Ethics specialists refer to past presidential product endorsements, which were often brief personal opinions rather than commercial endorsements. From Harry Truman complimenting the quality of Pillsbury flour to John F. Kennedy praising United Airlines, these mentions were far less overt than recent product promotions in the White House. Donald Trump’s active promotion of Tesla, complete with cars displayed on federal property, raised concerns over misuse of public platforms to endorse private companies.
Following the Tesla event, several senators, led by Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren, wrote to the Office of Government Ethics, seeking an inquiry into Elon Musk, arguing that although presidents are exempt from the ban on endorsements, Musk is not. The office, however, has refrained from commenting on the Warren letter or Lutnick’s TV appearance.
While the Commerce Department has not responded to inquiries, White House spokesman Kush Desai defended Lutnick’s contributions, citing his successful private sector career and crucial involvement in Trump’s economic team. Painter, a former White House ethics chief, notes that the issue of ethics cuts across party lines, pointing to past ethical challenges faced by Democrats. He specifically criticized the Clinton Foundation’s fundraising activities and former President Joe Biden’s association with a research institute while in office. Nonetheless, Painter remarked on the significant decline in adherence to ethical norms under the current administration.