Trump’s unilateral selection of his own club for the G20 puts Trump first—while other cities lose out

President Trump unilaterally announced last September that the 2026 G20 Summit would be held at his own Trump National Doral club, the Miami-area golf resort Trump still owns and profits from in office. Miami’s outgoing mayor Francis Suarez called hosting the G20 “historic” and a “generational opportunity” for the city that reinforces its “role on the international stage.” Trump dubiously claimed that “everybody wants it there” and, with no explanation of who he was referring to, that “[t]hey actually requested that it be there because the location is the best,” echoing false claims he made in his first term, when trying to host the G7 at the same property. To date there has actually been no transparency from the government regarding the selection process for the Leaders’ Summit and what other American cities, that aren’t adjacent to the president’s property, may have lost out on this “generational opportunity” to host the G20, which comes with economic benefits and priceless publicity.

The summit, which will bring leaders from the world’s largest economies to the Florida resort—and with it, by Trump’s own account, “millions and millions of dollars” in spending—isn’t just another example of Trump leveraging the presidency to benefit his own business interests. It’s also yet another instance of him prioritizing his personal financial interests over the interests of communities around the country. By deciding to host the event at his own property, Trump is deciding that he and, by extension, the city of Miami deserve the economic benefits of the meeting more than other potential host cities. 

Past G20 summits have indeed brought in millions in spending and economic development to the host cities both directly from visitors’ spending on things like hotels and restaurants and indirectly from the international attention that translates to increased tourism and investments for the city in the long-term. In 2009, the last time the summit was hosted in the U.S., host city Pittsburgh was estimated to have received approximately $135 million in benefit, including $35 million of local spending and the equivalent of $100 million in advertising space from the thousands of stories written about the meeting. 

Local officials and business leaders saw it as an opportunity for Pittsburg to advertise its transformation from steel town to a growing, innovative city. Then-Pittsburgh Mayor Luke Ravenstahl described outdated perceptions of the city, saying “we have a chance here over the next two months to really reshape that image problem…and tell the real story about a thriving city, a city that reinvented itself…after the steel industry collapsed in the ’70s.”

Describing the increased interest in the city as a result of the G20, then-Allegheny Conference CEO Dennis Yablonsky said, “our pipeline is now much, much more full than it would have been otherwise.” Mayor Ravenstahl summed up the experience, saying “We looked at it as a risk, in hosting an event like this, but a risk that was certainly worth it. When you compare it to the opportunity that existed, and here we are today one year later glad we took that risk and reaping the benefits of it.”

This time around, the selection of Trump’s property appears to have been a foregone conclusion. Just five months into Trump’s presidency, an aide was seen carrying a “G20 Miami 2026” sign into the Eisenhower Executive Office Building, and by July, press reports revealed that Trump had been discussing hosting the summit at Trump Doral for weeks. After the official announcement came in September, CREW submitted a Freedom of Information Act request seeking records relating to the selection process for the site. 

To date, the State Department has not provided any proposal that Miami or any other city may have provided outlining why it was the best venue for the Leaders’ Summit. Meanwhile, the State Department outlined a litany of requirements in the Federal Register to host the other, smaller G20 convenings from February to October 2026. For example, cities bidding to host these meetings were required to submit proposals detailing how the city was “uniquely qualified to host” including a past performance statement demonstrating the city’s success in hosting similar large events, letters of support from local officials or business leaders, descriptions of the specific venues to be used for the meetings, the available accommodations in the city, the nearest airports, reputable transportation firms to move attendees and the city’s security resources. 

American cities including Washington, DC, Asheville, NC, and Atlanta, GA were selected to host these smaller one-off convenings ahead of the December summit, but it is unclear if any of them were considered for the Leaders’ Summit. Undoubtedly, these cities spent staff time and money to convince the administration to select them for hosting; meanwhile it appears that Miami may have secured a windfall simply by virtue of being near the president’s resort. When the State Department and Secret Service failed to release documents or make a determination on CREW’s request for G20 documents, we sued. 

We’ve seen this before. During his first term, President Trump announced that he was planning to host the 2020 G7 at Trump Doral—a move he justified by claiming the Secret Service had preferred the site, a claim contradicted by internal Secret Service documents CREW obtained. Ultimately, Trump backed down after public outcry. In addition to the glaring ethical concerns that drew bipartisan criticism in 2019, the selection of Trump’s property means that another city is losing out. 

The selection of President Trump’s for-profit business to host this year’s G20 summit prioritizes Miami over other cities and directs profits directly to Trump, raising serious constitutional concerns. The White House claims that Trump Doral will host the summit “at-cost, and will receive no profit from either the State Department or a foreign government,” which would be barred by the Emoluments Clauses of the Constitution (unless Congress consented to the foreign profits). The Domestic Emoluments Clause is designed to ensure that the President of the United States does not favor one state over another; but it certainly appears that Miami, FL benefitted from being home to one of Trump’s preferred properties. Predictably, neither the White House nor the State Department has provided details of how the summit will be held at-cost to the public. Even if, somehow, the summit generates no direct revenue from the foreign delegates and staff, U.S. government employees and security officials visiting and staying at the property, Trump’s property will benefit from scores of free publicity from its time in the international spotlight, which could also be considered a domestic emolument in violation of the Constitution. In the leadup to the Pittsburgh G20, Mayor Ravenstahl noted, “you really can’t put a dollar value on the amount of free marketing we’ve received worldwide.” Trump is no stranger to finding every opportunity to advertise one of his businesses.

Given Trump’s history of using the presidency to promote his business interests and trying to improperly steer a diplomatic summit to Trump Doral, the public deserves to understand the full picture of how the president’s property was selected. The records CREW is suing to get from the administration would shed light on whether other potential host cities were given fair consideration. If Trump did in fact use his authority to steer the G20 from another city to his property, it is a clear example of the real cost of his profiteering.