The Trumps have always been celebrities, first and foremost. Beginning with Donald himself, the family business has been less about real estate and more about merchandising any number of consumer goods—from hotels to steaks to home furnishings—by tagging them with the family name. There's nothing inherently wrong with this; every twenty-first-century entertainer does it. But we've never elected one of them as President before. And, as the scandals now surrounding Melania and Ivanka Trump seem to demonstrate, the process of celebrity merchandising is disastrously incompatible with holding the highest office in the nation.

This week, lawyers for Melania Trump filed a libel suit against the Daily Mail (which had published an unsourced article alleging that she'd worked as an escort; the article has since been retracted). Melania claimed the paper had cost her "the unique, once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" to "launch a broad-based commercial brand in multiple product categories, each of which could have garnered multi-million dollar business relationships for a multi-year term during which plaintiff is one of the most photographed women in the world." Her position as FLOTUS is not specifically named, but come on: There's only one "once in a lifetime," multi-year opportunity to be "one of the most photographed women in the world" that Melania has accepted recently, unless she's also taken a role in the new Star Wars.

The brand would make good business sense. First ladies, like all high-profile political spouses, have an undeniable power to drive fashion trends. The Narciso Rodriguez dress that Michelle Obama wore to the 2016 State of the Union sold out within half an hour. Melania's brand—which theoretically, as per her lawsuit, would cover "apparel, accessories, shoes, jewelry, cosmetics, hair care, skin care, and fragrance"—would utilize those same huge spikes in demand. But instead of benefitting Narciso Rodriguez, the money would go to her. (For what it's worth, Melania's representatives issued a statement asserting that the First Lady "has no intention" of turning her position into a means of personal profit.)

Melania's brand would inevitably benefit her spouse financially, and would therefore pose the same opportunity for corruption.

Easy, simple, effective marketing—unless you remember all the conversations about Trump's conflicts of interest, and why it's a spectacularly bad idea to use the office of the Presidency for personal gain. Under the U.S. Constitution, "No person holding any office of profit or trust under the United States, shall without the consent of the Legislature accept of any present, emolument, office, or title of any kind whatever, from any king, prince or foreign State." Essentially, any Trump-branded merchandise with an international presence is an open channel for foreign countries to bribe the President. Melania's brand would inevitably benefit her spouse financially, and would therefore pose the same opportunity for corruption. It doesn't matter whether a Chinese factory gives a discount on manufacturing Melania-brand clothing, or whether foreign heads of state make sure to stay at Trump's D.C. hotel when they're in town; nor does it matter whether Trump seeks these relationships out or whether they simply happen. When money changes hands it creates a conflict of interest.

If Melania Trump is the theory, Ivanka Trump is the practice. After taking some heat for advertising the Ivanka-brand jewelry she wore to a 60 Minutes interview, Ivanka Trump nominally separated her personal social media presence from her company's, dividing their social media feeds into @IvankaTrump and @IvankaTrumpHQ. On January 11, she posted on Facebook that she had taken "a formal leave of absence" from her brand and the Trump Organization. But stepping away from the day-to-day operations does not necessarily prevent corruption if she still gains income from the business, and if she's still in communication with its staff. And, similarly to her father—who has filed to resign from only a fraction of his companies—Ivanka has filed paperwork that shows she is still listed as the CEO of her jewelry company, and her name is still on the liquor licenses for several Trump Organization properties in Florida and New York.

Since Donald Trump was elected President on November 9, Ivanka Trump (the person) has directly marketed the Ivanka Trump brand and merchandise seven times on her personal Twitter account. She's RTd the @IvankaTrumpHQ account directly four times. (Original tweets here, here, here, and here.)

She's also engaged in soft marketing, like posting a "mannequin challenge" in the brand's office and featuring its staff (or, for that matter, posing for a photo at her Trump Organization desk).

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

We opened the new #TeamIvanka office and had to partake in the #mannequinchallenge. Mannequin included 😉 pic.twitter.com/w7vczgMiiq — Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) November 14, 2016

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

The whole office is incredibly excited about the upcoming inauguration and 45th Presidency but will miss @realdonaldtrump come Friday! #MAGA pic.twitter.com/gDOe8Qytd7 — Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) January 17, 2017

Furthermore, Ivanka Trump is still directly involved in promoting the forthcoming book Women Who Work: Rewriting the Rules for Success, which is an extension of the Ivanka Trump brand's #WomenWhoWork campaign, and which was co-written with the Ivanka Trump brand's editorial director, Sarah Warren. There does seem to have been an effort to make it more of a personal project: On December 20, it was "our book" when Ivanka posted a selfie with Warren; on January 18, it was "my book" and "Ivanka's book" as per the @IvankaTrumpHQ account.

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

I had a night out with the @IvankaTrumpHQ Editorial Director, Sarah, to celebrate the completion of our #WomenWhoWorkBook manuscript!! pic.twitter.com/HNzN5yhFCA — Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) December 20, 2016

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

My #WomenWhoWorkBook is launching May 2nd. Get the details here: https://t.co/6i4euj20hs — Ivanka Trump (@IvankaTrump) January 18, 2017

And Ivanka has announced that she will donate the proceeds of the book sales to "charities whose missions align with her own," which may spare her charges of direct profiteering. But, as an extension of a campaign launched by her brand, the book inevitably constitutes marketing for that brand, which stands to enrich the company through increasing its visibility and status.

Keep in mind that, while this is going on, Ivanka has been an active part of her father's administration, and has taken credit for multiple policies and choices that align with the #WomenWhoWork brand; she has been the most visible advocate of her father's child care and maternity leave policies, and recently posted a photo of herself at Trump's Business Advisory Council meeting, where she declared that "leveling the playing field for women in the workforce was one of the key topics discussed."

Few things will establish you as an "authority" on women in the workplace more definitively than telling someone that the President has tapped you as his expert on women in the workplace. Ivanka is in the unprecedented position to not only use the Presidency to enrich herself, but to actually alter the administration's decisions in order to create synergistic branding opportunities. As in the case of a foreign head of state staying at Trump Hotels, it does not matter whether Ivanka means to do this; as long as she's connected to her brand, the conflict of interest exists.

The prospect that the President of the United States could retaliate against an American retail chain for refusing to sufficiently enrich his family members has been unthinkable, until this precise moment in history.

This flawed arrangement is already imposing consequences. Not only is Ivanka's brand paying the price of her association with President Trump in the form of boycotts and lost business (Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus, Belk, Jet.com, HSN, Shoes.com and ShopStyle have all dropped her merchandise; T.J. Maxx and Marshalls have instructed their stores to throw all Ivanka Trump signage in the trash), the President has gotten directly involved in defending his daughter's business against Nordstrom:

This content is imported from Twitter. You may be able to find the same content in another format, or you may be able to find more information, at their web site.

My daughter Ivanka has been treated so unfairly by @Nordstrom. She is a great person -- always pushing me to do the right thing! Terrible! — Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) February 8, 2017

The prospect that the President of the United States could retaliate against an American retail chain for refusing to sufficiently enrich his family members has been unthinkable, until this precise moment in history. And yet, as long as the Trumps are attempting to operate both as politicians and as brands, this sort of entanglement becomes not only possible but likely.

Again: If Melania or Ivanka Trump were still ordinary celebrities, none of this would matter. No one buys Taylor Swift-brand perfume or Kanye West-brand sneakers on their objective merits alone; they do it in order to vicariously experience their favorite celebrities' lifestyles. And celebrities often adapt their lifestyles to promote their products—by, for example, wearing some of their brand's clothing to a major photo op, or pitching a new product in the caption to a selfie. It's just that these selfies aren't normally taken at presidential policy meetings, and pitching one's brand does not normally have the capacity to alter U.S. foreign policy or change the course of history. Mixing personal branding with this level of power and influence is profoundly dangerous—all the more so because, to date, none of the Trumps seem to have given much thought to parsing the ethics of their situation, or to have realized why they should stop acting like celebrities and start behaving like the most powerful people in the world.

Sady Doyle Sady Doyle is the author of 'Trainwreck: The Women We Love to Hate, Mock, and Fear ...

This content is created and maintained by a third party, and imported onto this page to help users provide their email addresses. You may be able to find more information about this and similar content at piano.io