Which Trump businesses and foreign/state actors are cited in emoluments lawsuits and evidence?

1. Lawsuits and plaintiffs: who sued and why

Litigation over Trump’s alleged emoluments violations included suits brought by watchdogs (CREW), state attorneys general (D.C. and Maryland), and members of Congress seeking injunctions and declaratory relief under the Foreign and Domestic Emoluments Clauses; those cases targeted the President’s continued ownership and receipt of business income while in office ^{[5] [6] [7]}. The D.C./Maryland suit was styled as an anti‑corruption action and sought discovery into payments to Trump businesses; plaintiffs argued foreign and state payments to Trump properties injured them by undermining competitive markets and local governance ^{[6] [8]}.

2. Which Trump businesses are repeatedly cited

Reporting and the congressional minority staff investigation concentrated on a handful of Trump properties: the Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C.; Trump World Tower in New York (apartment sales/rentals tied to foreign entities); and Trump hotels including the Las Vegas property — plus broader references to “four businesses” and hundreds of Trump-owned entities where records existed ^{[4] [2] [3]}. Legal filings and the Oversight report specifically treated revenue streams to the D.C. hotel, Trump World Tower leases/sales, and certain Trump hotels as the principal conduits for alleged foreign/state payments ^{[4] [2]}.

3. Foreign and state actors named or quantified

The House Democratic report and follow-up coverage list at least 20 foreign governments or foreign-controlled entities as sources of payments, naming China, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, and Malaysia among them, and alleging substantial spending by Chinese actors and by CEFC-related entities in particular ^{[9] [2] [3]}. The Oversight minority staff quantified at least $7.8 million in foreign‑government‑linked payments during the presidency and highlighted more than $5 million tied to Chinese entities at three Trump properties between 2017 and 2020 ^{[1] [2]}.

4. Types of transactions at issue

Plaintiffs and investigators point to room bookings, event bookings, restaurant purchases, lease and apartment transactions, and rent paid by foreign‑government‑owned or -linked entities as the kinds of receipts that could constitute “emoluments” under the constitutional clauses — with the D.C. hotel singled out for hosting foreign delegations and state actors and Trump World Tower flagged for large private‑sector and sovereign‑connected apartment spending ^{[5] [2] [3]}.

5. Government and scholarly responses: contested definitions

The Justice Department’s early defense argued historical practice and precedent do not support treating ordinary commercial transactions as constitutional “emoluments,” framing the cases for dismissal ^[10]. By contrast, legal analysts, watchdog groups and the D.C./Maryland prosecutors argued the constitutional purpose bars federal officeholders from any benefit conferred by foreign states without Congress’s consent, and they described payments to Trump businesses as precisely the conduct the clauses forbid ^{[7] [11] [12]}.

6. Outcomes and procedural limits

Courts advanced discovery and produced legal opinions interpreting the clauses, but the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the emoluments litigation as moot after Trump left office, leaving key constitutional questions unresolved on the merits ^{[4] [8] [7]}. That procedural ending means the factual compilations in congressional reports and press investigations remain central to public understanding, while definitive judicial rulings about scope and remedy were not rendered ^{[4] [8]}.

7. What the sources do — and don’t — prove

Available sources document ledgers, Mazars-produced records, and committee calculations that attribute at least $7.8 million in payments to Trump businesses from foreign governments and name multiple countries and entities ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Sources do not provide a judicial finding that those payments legally violated the Emoluments Clauses on the merits because the Supreme Court’s dismissal on mootness ended the litigation before that question was authoritatively decided ^{[4] [8]}.

8. Takeaway for readers

The public record compiled by House Democrats, watchdogs and press outlets ties specific Trump properties (notably the D.C. hotel and Trump World Tower) to millions of dollars coming from foreign governments or government‑linked entities and shows litigants relied on those connections in emoluments suits ^{[2] [3] [5]}. Legal outcomes, however, stopped short of a merits determination; the dispute now lives mainly in investigative reports and competing legal and policy interpretations about what counts as an emolument ^{[4] [10] [11]}.