How Trump Got Away With Hiding His Chinese Business

By stonewalling on his tax returns, the president has kept “inherent and incessant conflicts” under wraps.

Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping in 2017.Andrew Harnik/AP

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.

The latest revelation from the New York Times coverage of President Donald Trump’s tax returns is that he has a bank account in China—one that has never before been mentioned. How did that happen?

While the Times has gotten a hold of Trump’s tax information, he has long refused to provide it to the public, despite decades of presidential tradition and precedent. When asked for his tax returns, Trump often tries to obfuscate by pointing to his personal financial disclosure, a form required to be submitted by presidential candidates and federal office holders. Trump likes to brag about how long his form is. And it is long, and does include a lot of information—but not enough.

The exposure of Trump’s Chinese account again underscores why the public needs to see presidential candidates’ tax returns. Without them, the disclosures provide some information on what they own and owe, but the details of how they got those assets and liabilities are hidden.

According to ethics experts, the law requires Trump to disclose all of his assets, debts, and income in his personal financial disclosures. But he doesn’t have to disclose the details of his business operations. So, while Trump has reported having bank accounts, he didn’t have to say that one of the hundreds of LLCs he owns personally—Trump International Hotel Management—has a Chinese bank account.

“Filers do not have to disclose business-related debts or business-related assets. Strange as that may sound, and counterintuitive as that is, that is the guidance from the Office of Government Ethics,” says Kathleen Clark, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis. So, Trump has to disclose he owns a business, but not whether the business has bank accounts or loans. 

Trump surrogates, like his son Eric Trump, have attempted to play down the revelation of the Chinese account, saying that the president “once looked at deals, long before politics,” but the Times piece makes it clear that he made a concerted effort to make money in China as recently as the early days of his 2016 campaign when he was negotiating with a potential partner (according to the Times, the deal fell apart when the partner was snarled in a corruption investigation). The Times cites that one of Trump’s LLCs, THC China Development LLC, claimed $84,000 in deductions in 2012, and paid fees and taxes more recently—transactions showing that Trump’s financial interest in China was not “long before politics.” While THC China Development LLC has been listed on Trump’s personal financial disclosure forms, showing whether or not it was active can only be done with the details provided by the president’s tax returns.

In that way, the Times story raises more questions than it answers. On his personal financial disclosure, Trump has numerous LLCs apparently designated for overseas projects that never happened—but, like with THC China Development LLC, is there more to their stories?

For example, according to the personal financial disclosures, in August 2015, several months into the Trump presidential campaign, he created a series of companies that, based on the name, indicate he was exploring a possibility of opening a hotel in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, the gateway to Islam’s most holy sites, Mecca and Medina. The sites are a massive tourist draw, and tourism in Jeddah is an enormous industry—and one that would be difficult to break into without at least the assent, if not the involvement, of senior members of the Saudi royal family. Like the Chinese LLC, the Saudi LLCs don’t appear to have ever generated income, but the personal financial disclosure forms are silent about how far Trump progressed in his talks with possible Saudi business partners, or who those partners were. Trump’s tax returns would help fill in those gaps.

The Times revelation about the Chinese bank accounts worries ethics experts like Clark and Kedric Payne, general counsel and senior director of ethics at the Campaign Legal Center, an ethics watchdog group.

“There’s always concern with whether or not this is a complete disclosure of all his financial interests, so there is definite concern that this is not the final picture,” Payne says.

“The larger point,” he says, “is that a president should divest of all his interests because otherwise you have these inherent and incessant conflicts.”

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

WHO DOESN’T LOVE A POSITIVE STORY—OR TWO?

“Great journalism really does make a difference in this world: it can even save kids.”

That’s what a civil rights lawyer wrote to Julia Lurie, the day after her major investigation into a psychiatric hospital chain that uses foster children as “cash cows” published, letting her know he was using her findings that same day in a hearing to keep a child out of one of the facilities we investigated.

That’s awesome. As is the fact that Julia, who spent a full year reporting this challenging story, promptly heard from a Senate committee that will use her work in their own investigation of Universal Health Services. There’s no doubt her revelations will continue to have a big impact in the months and years to come.

Like another story about Mother Jones’ real-world impact.

This one, a multiyear investigation, published in 2021, exposed conditions in sugar work camps in the Dominican Republic owned by Central Romana—the conglomerate behind brands like C&H and Domino, whose product ends up in our Hershey bars and other sweets. A year ago, the Biden administration banned sugar imports from Central Romana. And just recently, we learned of a previously undisclosed investigation from the Department of Homeland Security, looking into working conditions at Central Romana. How big of a deal is this?

“This could be the first time a corporation would be held criminally liable for forced labor in their own supply chains,” according to a retired special agent we talked to.

Wow.

And it is only because Mother Jones is funded primarily by donations from readers that we can mount ambitious, yearlong—or more—investigations like these two stories that are making waves.

About that: It’s unfathomably hard in the news business right now, and we came up about $28,000 short during our recent fall fundraising campaign. We simply have to make that up soon to avoid falling further behind than can be made up for, or needing to somehow trim $1 million from our budget, like happened last year.

If you can, please support the reporting you get from Mother Jones—that exists to make a difference, not a profit—with a donation of any amount today. We need more donations than normal to come in from this specific blurb to help close our funding gap before it gets any bigger.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate