The Trump Organization is attempting to appear transparent while providing zero actual evidence.

The Trump Organization announced that it is resolving all conflicts of interest by giving away profits from foreign governments. But it is refusing to provide any actual evidence of that beyond a mere say-so.

Instead, the company is attempting to appear transparent while not actually revealing any details or being accountable.

As the Chicago Tribune notes, “Neither the company nor the government disclosed the amount or how it was calculated.”

In a statement released on Monday following the announcement, Citizens for Responsibility for Ethics in Washington (CREW) attacked the announcement as doing basically nothing.

“This announcement is wholly inadequate,” CREW said. “There is no transparency as to how much money they donated, how they arrived at that number, how profits were calculated, or where the profits came from.”

CREW further notes that the Trump Organization’s plan “even if fully implemented, is woefully insufficient.”

The plan “only includes hotels, not all Trump businesses, only includes events, as they are not even trying to track payments for hotel rooms and meals, and only includes a nebulous ‘profit’ figure — not all payments — calculated at their discretion.”

“There is no independent oversight or accountability; we’re being asked to take their word for it,” CREW added. And even if the plan is implemented, “the taking of those payments would still be a problem under the Constitution.”

Trump’s children ostensibly took control of the Trump Organization when he took office. But that is not even close to sufficient to prevent ethical conflicts.

When foreign diplomats pay to stay at the Trump International Hotel in D.C., for example, it creates the appearance of buying influence. Ethics groups have filed lawsuits over this exact issue.

And none of this addresses the separate ethical issue that Trump Organization properties are funneling taxpayer money into their profits.

Trump’s family is desperate to end the questioning over their unethical mixing of personal and government business. Their newest façade of ostensible transparency does nothing but raise more questions.