As we all know, Trump is - first and foremost - a businessman. Not a very good one, in my opinion, but he's still a businessman. Trump does business internationally, through licensing deals and through the Trump Organization's various hotels and resorts. An issue that has remained since before Trump's inauguration is how Trump would distance himself from his businesses. In short, he has not. Trump has put his sons in charge of the Trump Organization in a "Revocable Trust". This has been long lambasted as insufficient distance from the Trump empire, and in the trust agreement Trump can still pull money from his empire without disclosing it. But that's not the biggest issue at hand, that has always been the subject of the Emoluments Clause and how to navigate that when the leader of the nation hasn't fully divested himself from his businesses.
The Title of Nobility Clause - also known as the Emoluments Clause - prohibits the federal government from granting titles of nobility and restricts members of the government from receiving gifts, emoluments, offices or titles from foreign states without Congressional consent.
No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
The conflict is when Trump's businesses do business with foreign officials and how that money is then handled, especially when Trump decides to do governmental business at the Mar-a-lago resort - affectionately called "The Southern White House" by Trump himself - in Palm Beach, Florida.
A while back, Trump had promised that all foreign government profits from would be donated to the US Treasury, though Trump and his attorneys have said they don't believe he's required to do so, the Trump Organization has made some donations. Nobody is entirely clear just how much they've donated, though, the Treasury has confirmed receipt of checks, but has not disclosed the amount. According to George Sorial, executive vice president and chief compliance counsel at the Trump Organization, they gave more than $150k in profits earned in '17 from foreign governments to the Treasury. Personally, I don't trust Sorial's word, but that's just me.
Now, the latest news is that the Trump Organization seems to be telling Congress that finding out exactly how much of its profits come from foreign governments is more trouble than it's worth. Responding to a document request from the House Oversight Committee, the Trump Organization sent a copy of an 8-page pamphlet detailing how it planned to track payments it receives from foreign governments at its many hotels, golf courses, and restaurants across the globe. While the Trump Organization said they'd set aside all money collected from customers that identify themselves as representing a foreign government, it wouldn't take any more intensive efforts to determine if a payment would violate the Emoluments clause. In its policy pamphlet, the Trump Organization wrote
To fully and completely identify all patronage at our properties by customer type is impractical in the service industry and putting forth a policy that requires all guests to identify themselves would impede upon personal privacy and diminish the guest experience of our brand
This has raised concerns over what the Trump Organization defines as "reasonably identifiable", and that the Organization is only holding money from those who identify themselves as representing a foreign government. This potentially leaves Trump with limited options, one of which is to actually fully divest himself from his businesses - of which Trump will most likely never do - or ask Congress for a different arrangement.
My personal opinion is that this is the cost of business when you're so closely linked to the leadership of a nation. Were Trump to actually distance himself from his businesses - i.e. not have them controlled by his own goddamn son and most certainly not have the power to pull money from them whenever he wants - then I don't think I'd have (m)any complaints. But he hasn't, and likely won't, so this is a pretty big issue here. Trump and his attorneys have argued that the office of the president is not subject to the Emoluments Clause or other conflict-of-interest laws, but it's absolutely asinine to think that the Founding Fathers and Framers had this intention when they drafted the Constitution. If they cannot count, to the penny, every single dollar earned from foreign governments, they shouldn't be doing business abroad and hosting government officials.