Trump defends $400M jet gift on Mideast tour
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
What happened
President Trump last week embarked on a pomp-filled tour of the Middle East, where he signed investment deals with Saudi Arabia, pledged to lift U.S. sanctions on Syria, made overtures to Iran, and sparked domestic uproar with his plan to accept Qatar's gift of a $400 million jet. Trump scoffed at ethical concerns about receiving a lavishly appointed Boeing 747-8 from the Qatari royal family, saying the "palace in the sky" would be converted into an Air Force One and would go to his presidential library after he left office. Only a "stupid" person wouldn't want "a free, very expensive airplane," said Trump. In a memo, Attorney General Pam Bondi—a former lobbyist for Qatar—declared the gift would not violate anti-bribery laws or the Constitution's ban on foreign gifts because it would go initially to the Defense Department. But even many Republicans balked at the plan. Qatar's rulers "support Hamas," said Florida Sen. Rick Scott. "I don't know how you make [the plane] safe."
As Trump arrived in Saudi Arabia, his first stop, he got a ceremonial escort from six Royal Saudi Air Force F-15s and was met by an honor guard with golden swords. Sitting with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman under sparkling chandeliers in the royal palace, Trump praised the kingdom's de facto ruler as an "incredible man" and "my friend." In Riyadh, Trump announced he would lift decades-old sanctions on Syria to give the war-ravaged country "a chance at peace." The next day he met with Syrian President Ahmed al-Sharaa, a former al Qaida militant who led the recent overthrow of dictator Bashar al-Assad, praising him as a "tough guy." Trump noted that he decided to lift sanctions after a request from bin Salman. "Oh, what I do for the crown prince," he said.
Trump offered "a new path" to Iran, promising to ease sanctions if it abandoned its nuclear program and support of proxy militias. Should Tehran reject this "olive branch," he said, "we will have no choice but to inflict massive, maximum pressure." During the trip, bin Salman committed to $600 billion in U.S. investments, including $142 billion in arms purchases. Qatar, Trump's second stop, pledged deals worth more than $243 billion, including $96 billion in Boeing jets for Qatar Airways.
Trump's belief he can blithely accept a $400 million plane from Qatar is jaw-dropping, said the San Antonio Express-News. It's "a blatant act of self-enrichment" and a clear violation of the Constitution's emoluments clause, which forbids gifts for U.S. officials from "any King, Prince, or foreign State." That it technically goes to the Defense Department means nothing: The chief beneficiary will be a "corrupt president who is easily swayed by flattery and presents."
"Making matters worse is that Qatar is no friend," said National Review. Its "terrorist-loving government" has long supported Yemen's Houthi militia and funneled billions to Hamas, helping the group build the infrastructure it needed for the Oct. 7, 2023, massacre in Israel. It then blamed Israel for the slaughter and refused to use its leverage to help free Hamas' hostages. "Absolutely nothing good" can come from a president "feeling he owes something" to such a regime.
Trump visited a region awash in "tumult," from the humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza to the missile exchanges between Israel and the Iran-backed Houthis, said Alex Shephard in The New Republic. But actual diplomacy on this trip was an afterthought. Instead, his focus was business—with an uneasy blurring between America's interests and those of Trump Inc. Eric and Don Jr. "have been jaunting across the region" striking deals worth billions of dollars, including a high-end residential tower in Saudi Arabia and a golf course and villa complex in Qatar.
Meanwhile, Trump's "sidelining" of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu is unnerving Israelis, said Gerry Shih in The Washington Post. His failure to visit Jerusalem comes amid other signs of "cracks" between the staunch allies. The U.S. has engaged in hostage talks with Hamas without Israel's knowledge, struck a truce with the Houthis that didn't protect Israel, and moved to start nuclear negotiations with Iran while vetoing an Israeli strike on its enemy. Many Israelis now fear they're being cast off by a president they considered to be "the most pro-Israel in history."
It's telling that for the first planned trip of his second term, Trump chose "not a democracy but a despotism," said William Kristol in The Bulwark. And his gushing praise of bin Salman—a global pariah after he ordered the 2018 murder of dissident Saudi journalist Jamal Khashoggi—made clear he "admires the Saudi achievements in autocracy, plutocracy, and kleptocracy." Indeed, in remarks at a business summit in Riyadh, he condemned the "so-called nation builders, neocons, or liberal nonprofits" who have promoted democracy and liberalism in the region.
Since Trump returned to office, "the specter of authoritarianism" has sparked wide alarm, said Edward Luce in Financial Times. But "autocracy's twin is kleptocracy," and on that front Trump "seems much further advanced." The Trump family's crypto ventures are raking in millions. His sons are building a Trump-branded golf resort in Qatar, which is also a major investor in his son-in-law Jared Kushner's investment fund. It'd be fair to ask the America First president how any of this serves U.S. interests. "The suspicion arises that the president's real agenda is Trump First," and "the rest is sleight of hand."
Trump's "free" plane would be no "gift for the American taxpayer," said Joe Gould and Connor O'Brien in Politico. The two presidential planes currently in use are decades old and "increasingly hard to maintain," and replacements are years behind schedule. But before it could be used as Air Force One, the Qatari jet "would need to be torn down and rebuilt from the inside out" to meet security and communications needs and swept for "embedded foreign tech." Experts say that process could cost the government tens or even hundreds of millions of dollars. The furor over the plane could raise the heat on a simmering problem for Trump, said Aaron Blake in The Washington Post. Polls show many Americans have concerns about his business dealings, and lately we've seen "explosive reporting about Trump getting rich off cryptocurrency." While most Americans don't understand crypto, anyone can grasp the taking of an "extraordinary gift" from an Arab monarchy—a gift that would land just as he asks Americans to embrace austerity in his on-again, off-again trade war. Even for this norm-shattering president, "that would be pretty brazen."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
17 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
UK and others sanction two far-right Israeli Cabinet ministers for ‘inciting extremist violence'
They could now face asset freezes and travel bans. In a joint statement, the foreign ministers of the five countries said Ben-Gvir and Smotrich 'have incited extremist violence and serious abuses of Palestinian human rights. Extremist rhetoric advocating the forced displacement of Palestinians and the creation of new Israeli settlements is appalling and dangerous.' UK Foreign Secretary David Lammy said the two men 'have been inciting violence against Palestinian people for months and months and months' and 'encouraging egregious abuses of human rights.' Advertisement 'These measures are directed at individuals who directly contribute to extremist settler violence,' said Canadian Foreign Minister Anita Anand. 'The measures are not directed against the state of Israel itself.' Smotrich wrote on social media that he learned of the sanctions while he was inaugurating a new West Bank settlement. 'We are determined to continue building,' he said. Advertisement Ben-Gvir, also writing on social media, said 'we overcame Pharoah, we'll overcome Starmer's Wall,' referring to British Prime Minister Keir Starmer. Israel's government condemned the announcement, which came as traditional allies of Israel escalate denouncements of Israel's actions in Gaza, from the high civilian death toll to a months-long blockade that led to famine warnings. Israel's Foreign Minister Gideon Saar called the sanctions decision 'outrageous.' He said he had discussed it with Netanyahu and they would meet next week to discuss Israel's response. He said that the move threatened to harden Hamas' stance in ongoing negotiations to end the war in Gaza and to cut short Israel's operation in Gaza before it achieves its goals. Benny Gantz, a centrist Israeli lawmaker and political rival to Netanyahu, wrote he 'vehemently' disagreed with Smotrich and Ben-Gvir, but said the move was 'profound moral mistake and sends a dangerous message to terrorists around the world.' Netanyahu is the target of an arrest warrant issued by the International Criminal Court last year over alleged war crimes in Gaza, part of a global wave of outrage at Israel's conduct during its 20-month war against Hamas. Netanyahu has denied the allegations and accused the court of being biased against Israel. The Biden administration took the rare step of sanctioning radical Israeli settlers implicated in violence in the occupied West Bank — sanctions that were lifted by President Trump. Eitay Mack, an Israeli human rights lawyer who spent years campaigning for the sanctions on Smotrich and Ben-Gvir — along with violent West Bank settlers — described Tuesday's move as 'historic.' 'It means the wall of immunity that Israeli politicians had has been broken,' he said. 'It's unbelievable that it took so long for Western governments to sanction Israeli politicians, and the fact that it's being done while Trump is president is quite amazing.' Advertisement Mack added: 'It is a message to Netanyahu himself that he could be next.' Israel captured the West Bank, along with east Jerusalem and the Gaza Strip, in the 1967 Mideast war. The Palestinians want all three territories for a future state. Successive Israeli governments have promoted settlement growth and construction stretching back decades. It has exploded under Netanyahu's far-right coalition, which has settlers in key Cabinet posts. There are now well over 100 settlements across the West Bank that house more than 500,000 settlers. The settlers have Israeli citizenship, while the territory's 3 million Palestinians live under Israeli military rule, with the Palestinian Authority administering population centers. Most of the international community considers the settlements illegal, and Palestinians see them as the greatest obstacle to an eventual two-state solution, which is still seen internationally as the only way to resolve the conflict.
Miami Herald
18 minutes ago
- Miami Herald
Is Elon Musk right to oppose the budget bill? What Americans said in a new poll
During his public falling out with President Donald Trump, Elon Musk slammed the president's proposed spending bill — dubbed the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' — claiming it will balloon the deficit. It turns out, most Americans agree with his critique, new polling reveals. In the latest Economist/YouGov poll, half of respondents were asked to react to a statement from Musk on the GOP-backed spending bill, which passed in the House without a single Democratic vote. The legislation, Musk wrote on X on June 3, 'will massively increase the already gigantic budget deficit to $2.5 trillion and burden (American) citizens with crushingly unsustainable debt.' A majority of respondents, 56%, said they agreed with this statement, while just 17% said they disagreed. More than one-quarter, 27%, said they were unsure. The answers were largely linked to partisan affiliation, with Democrats largely siding with Musk for a change. Seventy-two percent of Democrats said they concurred with the billionaire's statement about the spending bill, as did 55% of independents. Among Republicans, a plurality, 44%, said they agreed. The poll — which sampled 1,533 U.S. adults June 6-9 — posed the same statement before the other half of respondents, but this time, it did not attribute it to Musk. Without reference to Musk, a slightly smaller share, 49%, said they agreed with the statement, while 23% said they disagreed. Smaller shares of Republicans, independents and Democrats agreed, though Democrats saw the largest decrease in support — from 72% to 60%. The poll has a margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. More on the 'One Big Beautiful Bill' The spending bill, which provides funding for fiscal year 2025, passed in the House in a 215-214 vote in late May and is now under consideration in the Senate. It contains many pieces of Trump's agenda, including a road map to extend the 2017 tax cuts, as well as an increase in funding for the Pentagon and border security, according to previous reporting from McClatchy News. At the same time, it slashes funding for social programs like Medicaid and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP). Further — to Musk's point — it would increase the federal deficit by $3.8 trillion over the next 10 years, according to an analysis from the Congressional Budget Office, a nonpartisan agency. In addition to Musk, the bill has received criticism from several other prominent conservatives in Congress. One of the most vocal opponents has been Sen. Rand Paul of Kentucky, who wrote on X that 'the spending proposed in this bill is unsustainable, we cannot continue spending at these levels if we want to truly tackle our debt.' Other Republican lawmakers have come out in defense of the bill, including House Speaker Mike Johnson, who has said the legislation will deliver 'historic tax relief, ensure our border stays secure, strengthen our military, and produce historic savings.' Meanwhile, Democrats have been united in their opposition. In a statement, House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries labeled the bill 'the GOP Tax Scam' and said it would rip 'healthcare and food assistance away from millions of people in order to provide tax cuts to the wealthy, the well-off and the well-connected.'
Washington Post
18 minutes ago
- Washington Post
Sending the National Guard is bad. Arresting 3,000 a day is worse.
ICE agents making arrests in the parking lot of a Home Depot helped set off mass protests in Los Angeles. But that wasn't an isolated incident. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is increasingly taking actions at courthouses, restaurants and other spaces it previously stayed away from. President Donald Trump and his top aides have long favored harsh immigration policies. But what's shifted in recent weeks is that the administration has set a specific goal of ICE arresting at least 3,000 people per a quota may help Trump accomplish his goals, but it is leading to overly aggressive tactics that are deeply unsettling Americans across the country. It was perhaps inevitable that a president who promised to deport more people than his predecessors would implement an arrest quota. In the first months of Trump's tenure, the number of deportations and ICE arrests wasn't that much higher than when President Joe Biden was in office. That reportedly frustrated Trump administration officials, particularly Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller. So last month, Miller and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi L. Noem privately gave ICE leaders — and then publicly confirmed — the goal of making 3,000 arrests per day. The administration also replaced ICE's leadership with people it felt would be more aggressive. That's a huge increase: The agency was making between 700 and 900 arrests per day at the end of Biden's term and the start of Trump's. And it appears this new policy is being carried out. ICE officials say they arrested 2,267 people on June 3 and 2,368 on June 4. It's possible these numbers are being inflated by the agency to please Trump and Miller. But there are articles in news outlets across the country about unprecedented ICE enforcement actions in their communities, so I believe the agency is going beyond its usual moves. But this policy is misguided. Quotas are problematic in many contexts. I support increased gender and racial diversity but am wary of organizations trying to hire a set number of women and people of color. In law enforcement, they are more troublesome. Police officers operating under quota systems feel pushed to make arrests for minor offenses. They sometimes target not the most dangerous people but those who are easiest to apprehend. That's what's happening now. Undocumented immigrants showing up to court hearings, working at clothing stores or looking to get Home Depot customers to hire them for day labor are probably not leading human trafficking organizations on the side. I am deeply concerned that ICE will soon start making arrests at schools and hospitals, since those are other places where you can arrest lots of people at once — few of whom will be armed or dangerous. I am opposed to these arrests in part because I don't support Trump's overarching goals of deporting 1 million immigrants a year and creating a climate in which other undocumented immigrants return to their native countries on their own. But you could argue that while Trump did not specifically campaign on 3,000 arrests per day, he promised to crack down on undocumented immigrants, and Americans elected him, so the public wants this. It's hard to determine why people voted for a candidate and what kind of mandate that gives them. But even if Trump campaigned explicitly on arresting 3,000 people a day, we should be wary of that policy — and not just because quotas generally aren't smart. This particular quota is excessive. If ICE arrested 3,000 a people a day, that would add up to about 1.1 million arrests after a year. There are about 11.7 million undocumented people in the United States. So if no individual was arrested more than once, about 9 percent of undocumented immigrants would be arrested in a given year under this policy. Arresting 9 percent of any group would almost certainly result in the other 91 percent being constantly worried about being arrested or jailed. And because about three quarters of undocumented immigrants are from Central or South America, some U.S. citizens and authorized residents who are Brown almost certainly will be unjustly arrested or questioned by ICE. This arrest quota echoes stop-and-frisk policies many police departments used to employ. At the height of that approach, there were about 350,000 stops of the 1.9 million Black New Yorkers. Basically every Black New Yorker had to be on guard for being stopped and frisked, and a judge invalidated the program on the grounds that it was racially discriminatory. Miller and Trump may want all 11.7 million undocumented immigrants to live in terror. But the rest of us shouldn't. The overwhelming majority of those people came to the United States seeking a better life. If we want to deter future immigrants, cracking down on employers who hire undocumented people and making it harder to enter the country in the first place are obvious solutions. Making life excessively difficult for people already here will probably discourage future migrants, but the U.S. government should not be in the business of rushing into restaurants and courthouses with guns to arrest people for the purpose of scaring others into leaving the country. Many Democratic politicians and political commentators have criticized Trump for deploying the National Guard over the objections of California Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democrat, to stop the protests of ICE's actions in Los Angeles. But Presidents Dwight D. Eisenhower and Lyndon B. Johnson rightly invoked the National Guard, without support from governors, to integrate schools and defend civil rights marches respectively. The problem isn't that Trump is using the National Guard; it's that he's using the National Guard to defend a policy that will target people of color indiscriminately and inhumanely. The quota must go.
