Donald Trump’s own words are now being used against him in a lawsuit over $63 million gift he shouldn’t be given

A group of Miami residents have filed a lawsuit to block a prime piece of waterfront land from being handed over to the Donald Trump Presidential Library Foundation, Inc. The land, valued at around $63 million, was previously owned by Miami Dade College and is set to be donated to the foundation. The lawsuit claims this would violate the Domestic Emoluments Clause in the U.S. Constitution, which prohibits states from giving a financial benefit to a sitting president.

The lawsuit was filed jointly by the Constitutional Accountability Center and the Florida law firm Gelber Schachter & Greenberg. It accuses Trump, the foundation, top Florida officials, and Miami Dade College of violating the law. The plaintiffs argue that the land is likely worth hundreds of millions of dollars and could double Miami Dade College’s endowment if sold on the open market.

This is not the first time locals have raised concerns about the deal. In November, a judge granted a temporary injunction to block the transfer after local activist Marvin Dunn sued, accusing Miami Dade College of violating the state’s open meeting laws. However, the judge lifted the injunction a month later after the college board held a second vote that included more details and allowed for public comment, reports CNN.

Trump’s own statements suggest the project is more about profit than preserving presidential history

The land deal has been in the works since last September, when Governor Ron DeSantis and other state officials moved to donate the land to the Trump foundation. A bill passed by the Republican-controlled state legislature and signed into law by DeSantis barred local governments from regulating presidential libraries, in anticipation that Trump would build one in his adopted home state.

In a statement to CNN, White House spokesman Davis Ingle said the library would be “one of the most magnificent buildings in the world and a living testament to the indelible impact” of Trump. But the lawsuit uses Trump’s own words against him. In a statement last year, Trump said, “I don’t believe in building libraries or museums,” and that the land sits on the “best block in Miami.” 

The lawsuit argues that these statements “make clear that President Trump intends to monetize this skyscraper, generating significant profit for himself and his family.” Trump has made several eyebrow-raising comments at public events recently, including a moment where Trump made a startling admission at a law enforcement event that left many people stunned.

The lawsuit also claims the deal lacked transparency and that the public was not given proper notice of the plans. Miami Dade College held a meeting in the fall to discuss “potential real estate transactions,” but the agenda made no mention of a presidential library. A pre-recorded and edited video about the plans was later posted on social media by Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier.

The plaintiffs include a Miami Dade College student, a nonprofit owned by Marvin Dunn, and two Miami residents who say the proposed Trump skyscraper would block their views. They are seeking to stop the state from handing over the land and want it returned to Miami Dade College. 

As Dunn said, “These funds could have been used to advance the college’s research needs, offer more bachelor’s degree programs, secure more world-class facilities and faculty, or reduce student expenses.” In a video posted to X, Eric Trump gave a first look at the planned Donald J. Trump Presidential Library, showing a massive tower with the Trump name on it and a lobby featuring a 747 Air Force One. 

President Trump himself has suggested the library could feature a hotel or offices, making it look more like his other real estate projects than the museums built by previous presidents. Meanwhile, the administration is also facing scrutiny on other fronts, with reports that the US may rename the Iran war to bypass Congress while Trump meets with military generals.

The outcome of the lawsuit remains uncertain. But it puts a spotlight on how the land deal was handled, whether proper legal processes were followed, and what the project would actually be used for, raising serious questions about the use of public assets for what critics say is a privately profitable development.