Not sure what you are on about.

It's not a constitutional requirement that a President divest himself or herself of private business interests which are profitable, nor is it a requirement that a President cannot start new businesses after being elected. This includes no constitutional prohibition to the President's engaging in private business enterprises which derive profits from foreign actors, citizens, governments, or what have you. It's simply not there.

Prohibited "emoluments" may include rewards/benefits/favors/gifts/what have you received by the President from foreign governments [etc.] for services performed on behalf of the foreign government in his capacity as President.

I say "may" because as was noted, there is a dearth of interpretation of the clause by the Supreme Court.

However, there is no possible interpretation of the Emoluments Clause that prohibits business activity by the President where for example profits are received as compensation in exchange for value provided.

For example, Trump is not prohibited from running a golf course development business in his private capacity, making contracts to build golf courses in foreign countries and even for foreign governments, and being compensated for that.

If the Saudi Government hires Trump's golf course company to build a golf course in Riyadh and pays him to do that it's perfectly legitimate and not a violation of the emoluments clause.

You may be thinking of some other example but if so what is it specifically and why do you think it violates the Emoluments Clause?