Trump's Middle East visit comes as his family deepens its business, crypto ties in the region
WASHINGTON (AP) — It's not just the 'gesture' of a $400 million luxury plane that President Donald Trump says he's smart to accept from Qatar. Or that he effectively auctioned off the first destination on his first major foreign trip, heading to Saudi Arabia because the kingdom was ready to make big investments in U.S. companies.
It's not even that the Trump family has fast-growing business ties in the Middle East that run deep and offer the potential of vast profits.
Instead, it's the idea that the combination of these things and more — deals that show the close ties between a family whose patriarch oversees the U.S. government and a region whose leaders are fond of currying favor through money and lavish gifts — could cause the United States to show preferential treatment to Middle Eastern leaders when it comes to American affairs of state.
Before Trump began his visit to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, his sons Eric and Donald Jr. had already traveled the Middle East extensively in recent weeks. They were drumming up business for The Trump Organization, which they are running in their father's stead while he's in the White House.
Eric Trump announced plans for an 80-story Trump Tower in Dubai, the UAE's largest city. He also attended a recent cryptocurrency conference there with Zach Witkoff, a founder of the Trump family crypto company, World Liberty Financial, and son of Trump's do-everything envoy to the Mideast, Steve Witkoff.
'We are proud to expand our presence in the region,' Eric Trump said last month in announcing that Trump Tower Dubai was set to start construction this fall.
The presidential visit to the region, as his children work the same part of the world for the family's moneymaking opportunities, puts a spotlight on Trump's willingness to embrace foreign dealmaking while in the White House, even in the face of growing concerns that doing so could tempt him to shape U.S. foreign policy in ways that benefit his family's bottom line.
Nowhere is the potential overlap more prevalent than in the Middle East
The Trump family's business interests in the region include a new deal to build a luxury golf resort in Qatar, partnering with Qatari Diar, a real estate company backed by that country's sovereign wealth fund. The family is also leasing its brand to two new real estate projects in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia's capital, in partnership with Dar Global, a London-based luxury real estate developer and subsidiary of private Saudi real estate firm Al Arkan.
The Trump Organization has similarly partnered with Dar Global on a Trump Tower set to be built in Jeddah, Saudi Arabia, and an upcoming Trump International Hotel and luxury golf development in neighboring Oman.
During the crypto conference, a state-backed investment company in Abu Dhabi announced it had chosen USD, World Liberty Financial's stablecoin, to back a $2 billion investment in Binance, the world's largest cryptocurrency exchange. Critics say that allows Trump family-aligned interests to essentially take a cut of each dollar invested.
'I don't know anything about it,' Trump said when asked by reporters about the transaction on Wednesday.
Then there's the Saudi government-backed LIV Golf, which has forged close business relationships with the president and hosted tournaments at Trump's Doral resort in South Florida.
'Given the extensive ties between LIV Golf and the PIF, or between Trump enterprises more generally and the Gulf, I'd say there's a pretty glaring conflict of interest here," said Jon Hoffman, a research fellow in defense and foreign policy at the libertarian think tank the Cato Institute. He was referring to Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, which has invested heavily in everything from global sports giants to video game maker Nintendo with the aim of diversifying the kingdom's economy beyond oil.
Trump said he did not talk about LIV Golf during his visit in Saudi Arabia.
The president announced in January a $20 billion investment for U.S. data centers promised by DAMAC Properties, an Emirati company led by billionaire Dubai developer Hussain Sajwani. Trump bills that as benefiting the country's technological and economic standing rather than his family business. But Sajwani was a close business partner of Trump and his family since long before the 2016 election.
White House bristles at conflict of interest concerns
Asked before he left for the Middle East if Trump might use the trip to meet with people tied to his family's business, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said it was 'ridiculous' to 'suggest that President Trump is doing anything for his own benefit.'
'The president is abiding by all conflict of interest laws,' she said.
Administration officials have brushed off such concerns about the president's policy decisions bleeding into the business interests of his family by noting that Trump's assets are in a trust managed by his children. A voluntary ethics agreement released by The Trump Organization also bars the firm from striking deals directly with foreign governments.
But that same agreement still allows deals with private companies abroad. In Trump's first term, the organization released an ethics pact prohibiting deals with both foreign governments and foreign companies.
The president, according to the second-term ethics agreement, isn't involved in any day-to-day decision-making for the family business. But his political and corporate brands remain inextricably linked.
'The president is a successful businessman,' Leavitt said, "and I think, frankly, that it's one of the many reasons that people reelected him back to this office.'
Timothy P. Carney, senior fellow at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, said he doesn't want to see U.S. foreign policy being affected by Trump's feelings about how other countries have treated his family's business.
'Even if he's not running the company, he profits when the company does well,' Carney said. 'When he leaves the White House, the company is worth more, his personal wealth goes up.'
Promises of US investment shaped Trump's trip
His family business aside, the president wasn't shy about saying he'd shape the itinerary of his first extended overseas trip on quid pro quo.
Trump's first stop was Saudi Arabia, just as during his first term. He picked the destination after he said the kingdom had pledged to spend $1 trillion on U.S. companies over four years. The White House has since announced that the actual figure is $600 billion. How much of that will actually be new investment — or come to fruition — remains to be seen.
The president is also stopping in the UAE, which has pledged $1.4 trillion in U.S. investments over the next 10 years, and in Qatar, where Trump says accepting the gift of a Boeing 747 from the ruling family is a no-brainer, dismissing security and ethical concerns raised by Democrats and even some conservatives.
Trump's Middle East business ties predate his presidencies
Trump's first commercial foray in the Middle East came in 2005, during just his second year of starring on 'The Apprentice.' A Trump Tower Dubai project was envisioned as a tulip-shaped hotel to be perched on the city's manmade island shaped like a palm tree.
It never materialized.
Instead, February 2017 saw the announced opening of Trump International Golf Club Dubai, with Sajwani's DAMAC Properties. Just a month earlier, Trump had said that Sajwani had tried to make a $2 billion deal with him, 'And I turned it down."
'I didn't have to turn it down, because as you know, I have a no-conflict situation because I'm president,' Trump said then.
This January, there was a beaming Sajwani standing triumphantly by Trump's side at Trump's Mar-a-Lago estate in Florida, to announce DAMAC's investment in U.S. data centers.
'It's been amazing news for me and my family when he was elected in November,' Sajwani said. 'For the last four years, we've been waiting for this moment.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investing £5k of savings can generate a passive income of…
Buying dividend shares is a rapid and simple way to start earning a passive income. As with every investment, there are risks involved. But such threats can be managed through prudent decision-making and portfolio diversification. And when done well, the subsequent income stream can be quite lucrative, especially in the long run. So let's say an investor has £5,000 of capital sitting in a savings account. How much passive income can this money generate overnight and over the long term? The amount generated depends on which dividend stocks an investor decides to buy. Most tend to stick with simple index tracker funds. And right now, the FTSE 100 index offers a respectable 3.4% yield. That means, overnight, a £5,000 could generate a passive income of £170 a year. Obviously, that's not a groundbreaking sum, especially since many savings accounts offer similar returns right now at much lower levels of risk. However, there's also capital gains to take into consideration. And when combined with the dividend yield, the FTSE 100's historically generated close to an 8% annualised return for investors. Let's assume this trend continues over the next decade. What does this mean for an investor's passive income if they decide to reinvest any dividends between now and 2035? Without any additional capital, the original £5,000 will have grown to around £11,100. And if the yield's still 3.4%, that means the passive income stream will reach £377.40. That's a notable improvement. But what if we can do even better? Instead of relying on an index fund, investors can take matters into their own hands and invest in individual stocks directly. And right now, there are plenty of FTSE 100 constituents offering significantly higher yields. Take Aviva (LSE:AV.) as an example to consider. Today, the insurance giant already offers a more impressive payout with a 5.9% yield. So a £5,000 investment would instantly unlock an annual passive income of £295. But those who hopped on the bandwagon just five years ago are already earning considerably more. Following the appointment of CEO Dame Amanda Blanc in 2020, the company has undergone a significant transformation. It divested its non-core business ventures, raising over £8bn while simultaneously streamlining operations. Pairing this increase in efficiency with boosted activity within the annuity market, courtesy of higher interest rates, shareholders have been immensely rewarded. The Aviva share price has more than doubled, turning a £5,000 investment into £10,400. And at the same time, dividends were hiked by an average of 18% a year, turning an already substantial 5.3% yield at the time into a 12.2% payout. As such, a £5,000 initial investment in 2019 is now generating a passive income of £1,268.80. Sadly, Aviva shares aren't guaranteed to replicate this success between now and 2030. The company's still attempting to digest its £3.7bn acquisition of Direct Line Group. And with the UK government flirting with new mandates to force pension funds to invest more in UK assets, compliance-related costs of evolving regulation could create new headaches that impede performance. Nevertheless, Aviva serves as a good example of how stock picking opens the door to potentially superior returns in the long run. The post Investing £5k of savings can generate a passive income of… appeared first on The Motley Fool UK. More reading 5 Stocks For Trying To Build Wealth After 50 One Top Growth Stock from the Motley Fool Zaven Boyrazian has no position in any of the shares mentioned. The Motley Fool UK has no position in any of the shares mentioned. Views expressed on the companies mentioned in this article are those of the writer and therefore may differ from the official recommendations we make in our subscription services such as Share Advisor, Hidden Winners and Pro. Here at The Motley Fool we believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. Motley Fool UK 2025
Yahoo
35 minutes ago
- Yahoo
What the Trump-Musk Feud Means for SpaceX and NASA
The U.S. government relies on SpaceX to support NASA and other agencies, and the company has received more $20 billion in federal contracts for it. As Musk and Trump threaten to cut ties, here's what that would mean for the U.S.'s space ambitions.
Yahoo
40 minutes ago
- Yahoo
We shall not continue as a free country if we continue to submit to radical Islamists
It shows in what strange times we live that it is the chairman of Reform, of all parties, who resigns over the question of banning the burka. Surely his party is the likeliest to favour a ban or – at least – to be able to contain internal disagreements on the subject. Probably Reform's chairman, Zia Yusuf, had other reasons to go. He is not the first person to find it challenging to work closely with Nigel Farage. In a spooky way, Reform tends to act as a mini-Maga, mirroring Trumpery in its highs and lows. Over there, Donald Trump and Elon Musk explode with a cosmic bang; over here, Farage and Yusuf then go off with a smaller pop. For this reason, I suspect that when Maga falters, as it eventually will, so will Reform. Nevertheless, Mr Yusuf is a Muslim. Partly for that reason, he was a recruitment coup for the supposedly 'Islamophobic' Reform. On Thursday, he said his party's newest MP, Sarah Pochin, had been 'dumb', at Prime Minister's Questions, to call for a burka ban; then he resigned. Let me take two other recent examples of where attitudes to Islam raise knotty problems. On Monday, Hamit Coskun, an atheist Turk, was found guilty of a 'religiously aggravated public order offence' and fined. He had burnt a copy of the Koran outside the Turkish consulate in London. In an article in this week's Spectator, Mr Coskun says he was protesting about President Erdogan of Turkey changing his country from a firmly secular state to 'a base for radical Islamists while trying to create a sharia regime'. The magistrate, however, decided otherwise. Mr Coskun had been 'motivated at least in part by hatred of followers of the [Muslim] religion', he said, and so he was a criminal. My other example comes from events outside Parliament on Wednesday. A noisy mob of anti-Israel demonstrators blocked, insulted and intimidated MPs and peers trying to enter. The protesters proudly announced that they were drawing a red line round the premises, as if they had that right. A disabled peer I know who travels by wheelchair, found it frightening to get through the crowd, though he determinedly persisted. He complained to a police officer, and got the airy reply, 'It's free speech, isn't it?' It indicates the sense of vulnerability such situations arouse that the peer asks me not to print his name. Another peer, Lord Moynihan, was surrounded near the Tube station entrance by black-clad youths who subjected him to an involuntary interview, which they filmed, including the question: 'Do you condemn the massacres of Gazans?' 'I do indeed condemn the terrible shootings by Hamas of their own people,' he bravely answered. It was noticeable – and has happened before – that when there are Gaza marches the police and the parliamentary authorities are lax about ensuring legislators can enter freely and protesters are kept at a distance. They seem not to acknowledge the vital difference between free speech and threatening behaviour. Obviously, the greatest passion behind the Gaza marches comes from Muslims (though the secular hard-Left is also involved). Have the police made a covert bargain with the march organisers? The fear of being called 'Islamophobic' seems to disable the police's judgment. They do not properly enforce public order or protect the right of MPs, peers or staff, to reach their place of work unimpeded. Nor do they protect the right of ordinary citizens to enter Parliament without fear. They act as if the 'right to protest' allows parliamentary democracy to be made subject to a picket line. Yesterday, with many other peers, I signed a letter to the Lord Speaker, organised by Lord Walney. One of our points was that, on top of normal public-order legislation, there are at least four other laws which specifically protect Parliament from such attacks. Why are these not enforced, we asked, and why do the parliamentary authorities not take a stronger line to insist that they should be? One of the attractions of Britain to immigrants is that we are a free country, treasuring free speech. In many cases, immigrants enhance our freedom. Now that immigration is on such a vast scale, however, we suffer because many immigrants do not come from freedom-loving cultures. To the extent that immigrants can be grouped by religion, by far our largest group are Muslims. For complex political, economic and cultural reasons, Islam is in global ferment. In that ferment, freedom is often scorned, except the freedom to advance interpretations of Islam, often the most extreme ones. Such Islamists have punitive, sometimes violent attitudes to promoting their version of their faith. At worst, this takes the form of terrorism. The words 'Allahu Akbar!' ('God is great!') have become the war-cry of an imminent explosion or attack. Even without actual violence, Islamism often involves naked anti-Semitism and unreasoning hatred of Israel. Militant Islam also tries to assert its power against the sort of freedoms which the rest of us (including, do not forget, many Muslims) cherish. Examples include forcing women and girls to cover their heads and even their faces, prohibitions on school swimming or singing, protests against being served by women in the public services and the banning of certain books and films. A leading Islamist demand is for a blasphemy law, although its supporters use other words to describe it. Most Muslims are highly sensitive to any perceived insult to their prophet, Mohammed, or to the Koran. Because they regard the Koran as 'the unmediated word of God', some take the view that disrespect to the physical object, the book of his word, is a direct attack on him, and therefore must be avenged. Belief in the sacredness of religious scriptures should be respected by non-believers, but it must not be defended by law, no matter how much transgressions may offend Muslims. It is unpleasant and foolish to burn the Koran in public, just as it was – which often happened in Britain until quite recently – to burn effigies of the Pope. But the only conceivable justification for banning would be in special incidents – burning a Koran in front of worshippers entering a mosque, for example – which would amount to an incitement to violence. The offence here should not be because the act was 'religiously aggravated'. A modern country should not adjudicate between the sincerity, truth or competing ardour of different religious claims. All it can judge is that some things in some places breach civil peace. In all the cases cited above, you can see politicians and public authorities tiptoeing round the subject. Surefootedness is certainly better than clodhopping where religion is concerned. But there is a growing, justified fear that we shall not continue as a free country if we defer to the angriest Muslim voices. Two concepts need to be faced down. The first is the idea of 'Islamophobia', to which this Government wants to give legal shape. The word 'phobia' suggests psychological abnormality, yet surely people are entitled to be frightened of any religion, especially of Christianity and Islam, which aims for conversion and claims universal truth. Such fears may be misplaced, but they are not criminal. The other concept embedded in public policy, thanks to the Equality Act, is that of 'protected characteristics' – one's religion, sex, sexuality, age, disability, race etc. These are intended to defend people against persecution, but in practice they drive us into warring categories. The only protected characteristic anyone should need is to be a British citizen. That unites. Everything else divides. Broaden your horizons with award-winning British journalism. Try The Telegraph free for 1 month with unlimited access to our award-winning website, exclusive app, money-saving offers and more.
