Trump's Business Ties in the Middle East Are Drawing New Scrutiny
Trump's itinerary includes stops in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates — all countries with Trump-branded properties or high-value real estate projects in development, including hotels and golf resorts worth billions.
The visit has drawn criticism from Democratic leaders, including Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, who described it from the Senate floor on Wednesday as resembling 'a private business venture.' He cited, in particular, Trump's use of a $400 million luxury Boeing 747 provided by Qatar. Schumer, of course, isn't the only one to have criticized this move‚ which went viral. Ethics watchdogs have also flagged potential issues. Meghan Faulkner, communications director at Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics, says there's 'no question' that the jet could be interpreted as a form of foreign influence. 'It raises concerns about whether a country could be receiving special access, benefits, or favorable treatment because of a gift like that,' she tells Katie Couric Media.
With these overlapping interests in play, Trump's Middle East tour is reviving questions about the intersection of his public duties and private ventures, which was a frequent topic of conversation during his first time. Here's a closer look at the business ties behind the headlines — and why they're drawing attention now.
The Trump Organization's ties to the Middle East began during Trump's first term, with the 2017 Trump International Golf Club opening in Dubai. A second course is reportedly in the works, though its development has faced delays. That hasn't slowed the pace of new ventures: Just a week before President Trump's scheduled visits to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates, his son Eric Trump announced a $5.5 billion project to build an 80-story hotel and residential tower in the region, calling it a development that would 'redefine luxury.'
Beyond real estate and golf, Eric and his business partner, Zach Witkoff — the son of Steve Witkoff, President Trump's special envoy to the Middle East — recently announced a major cryptocurrency deal with a venture fund backed by the government of Abu Dhabi, the wealthiest emirate in the UAE. The fund plans to invest $2 billion through a digital currency issued by World Liberty Financial, the Trump family's crypto enterprise.
In Saudi Arabia, the Trump Organization has inked branding agreements for two significant real estate developments: a Trump Tower in the capital, Riyadh, and a $530 million residential high-rise in the coastal city of Jeddah. Announced just weeks after Trump's reelection, the deals don't involve any financial investment from the Trump family business, but they are expected to generate millions in licensing fees for the use of the Trump name.
Last month, the Trump Organization announced a new golf resort and real estate development in Qatar called the Trump International Golf Club & Villas. According to The New York Times, the 18-hole course will be built in partnership with Qatari Diar, a real estate company established by the country's sovereign wealth fund and chaired by a government minister.
In Oman, the Trump family has partnered with Dar Global on a hotel and golf resort project being developed on state-owned land. According to the Times, the Omani government will receive a share of the project's revenues — a financial arrangement that further blurs the lines between Trump's private interests and his role on the world stage.
The Trump Organization's expanding business ventures in the Middle East — along with the president's merchandise and media enterprises in the U.S. — are once again sounding the alarm about potential violations of the U.S. Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause. This essentially prohibits presidents from accepting payments or gifts from foreign governments without congressional approval. Despite these concerns, the Republican-led Congress has so far taken no formal action to address them during Trump's time in office.
'The Emoluments Clause is intended to prevent a president from using the power of the office for personal financial gain,' Hans Noel, Ph.D., a political scientist and professor at Georgetown University, tells us. 'While no illegality has been definitively established, Trump's actions — and those of his family — arguably conflict with the spirit of the law.'
That concern isn't theoretical. During Trump's first term, his businesses reportedly received $7.8 million from 20 foreign governments, according to a congressional report released by Democrats last year. But government watchdogs estimate the true total was closer to $13.6 million, and they warn that, with Trump back in office and his business expanding abroad, those figures could climb even higher in his second term.
'Much of our system to prevent this kind of corruption has depended on presidents voluntarily doing the right thing — honoring the Constitution without being forced to,' says Faulkner.
Historian Douglas Brinkley told The Washington Post that Trump's approach to blurring the lines between public office and personal gain could eclipse anything seen in modern presidential history, calling his actions a 'wrecking ball to convention and norms.'
Typically, public officials work hard to avoid not just actual corruption but even the appearance of it. While not legally mandated by the Constitution or federal law, many presidents have chosen to divest from or place their assets in a blind trust — like Jimmy Carter and George W. Bush — before taking office to prevent any real or perceived conflicts of interest. 'It was about the principle, the optics,' says Dr. Noel.
Trump, however, broke from this tradition in both his first and second terms. Upon taking office in 2017, he pledged to keep his private financial interests separate from his public role. Initially, he appeared to make gestures in that direction — turning over day-to-day management of the Trump Organization to his sons and selling off individual stock holdings ahead of his 2016 campaign. However, he did not divest from the business itself; instead, he retained full ownership and continued to profit from its operations. Over time, the line between his public duties and private interests became increasingly blurred. Ethics watchdogs documented more than 3,400 potential conflicts of interest during his first term alone.
'Trump's case is different,' says Dr. Noel. 'What sets it apart is that it's all happening so openly. Corruption is typically thought of as hidden — backroom deals, secret favors. But here, it's out in the open, which, paradoxically, makes it seem almost normal, even though the concerns remain very real.'
Other presidents have also faced scrutiny over potential conflicts of interest tied to foreign business connections. House Republicans, for instance, launched extensive investigations into whether President Joe Biden was involved in his son Hunter Biden's overseas ventures, including business ties to Chinese investors and a board position at a Ukrainian energy company during the time Biden was overseeing U.S. policy on Ukraine. While the probes raised ethical questions about Hunter's activities, they never uncovered direct evidence implicating the then-president in any wrongdoing.
What sets Trump apart in his second term, however, is the scale and visibility of his family's business activities — and the degree to which they overlap with his official duties. 'This reflects two broader trends,' says Dr. Noel. 'First, a growing number of ways for outside interests to influence the president. And second, a pattern of the president acting as though the rules simply don't apply. If these trends continue unchecked, it's a deeply concerning situation.'
The post Trump's Business Ties in the Middle East Are Drawing New Scrutiny appeared first on Katie Couric Media.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Bloomberg
a minute ago
- Bloomberg
Trump Call With European Leaders: What's at Stake
00:00 Trump and Marco Rubio, the US Secretary of State, both framing this summit as a feel out meeting. Do we expect therfore anything concrete to come out of it? Yeah. Good morning, Lizzie. I mean, I think it's too early to say in the sense that if both of them have come out with a very similar line, they clearly trying to sort of manage expectations that there's going to be some almighty breakthrough of these talks in Alaska. Having said that, you know, they are going into a summit with a very, very experienced negotiator in the form of Putin, who has made some very clear demands about what he wants before he's prepared to come to any sort of discussion about a cease fire and then some longer term peace. And I think Trump has indicated that a land swap of some sort is possible. So really what we'll be looking for on Friday is the sort of the contours of what that might look like. But again, Trump and again, Rubio have made it clear that they may go into that summit and nothing comes out of it whatsoever. Well, so as we wait for that, the next catalyst could be this meeting between EU leaders and Zelensky talking to Trump and his VP JD Vance today. What do we expect them to say? And is there any chance that actually that could influence the Alaska talks on Friday? Yeah, I mean, I think it is possible there may be an influence there. I mean, in terms of the position, I think the EU in particular with strong support, would of course, from Ukraine have said that, you know, there mustn't be a forced redrawing of borders. In other words, the EU position largely seems to be a ceasefire now along existing lines and then you get some sort of negotiations for a longer term peace. However, that is somewhat at odds with the kind of the rhetoric that we've been getting out of the US side. So again, are they going to be able to influence some, you know, really hard to say, but they're certainly going to give it a try. And I think, again, Ukraine has been very firm on this that they're not prepared to basically retreat from basically what accounts for three and a half thousand square miles of territory that Russia has been unable to capture militarily for the better part of a decade.
CBS News
a minute ago
- CBS News
California says Trump's L.A. military deployment was illegal and caused "anxiety and fear"; Feds say president had authority
Lawyers for the state of California and the federal government faced off in court Tuesday over President Trump's deployment of thousands of National Guard troops to Los Angeles. The attorney for the state, Meghan Strong, argued that having what she called a "standing army" in Los Angeles is "unprecedented" and goes against a "deep-rooted policy against military involvement in civilian life." She said that Mr. Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth "think that they can disregard that policy on a whim." Californians "have been forced to endure anxiety and fear caused by the pervasive presence of this standing army," said Strong. Mr. Trump sent in around 700 Marines and 4,000 California National Guard troops to protect federal property and law enforcement agents during a series of protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in early June. The deployment prompted a lawsuit from Gov. Gavin Newsom, who did not approve of the use of his state's Guard forces and called the move an illegal "power grab." At issue in the three-day bench trial pitting Newsom against the Trump administration is whether the troops violated the Posse Comitatus Act, which generally prohibits military personnel from carrying out domestic law enforcement. Strong alleged that the federal government acted in violation of that 1878 law, saying troops were used to provide armed security for federal agents, set roadblocks and perimeters that restricted civilian movement, and detained civilians. California asked U.S. District Judge Charles Breyer for an injunction that would let the military protect federal property — like courthouses and ICE facilities — but block it from continuing the support for immigration enforcement operations, which the state's lawyer called an "unlawful military crusade." Meanwhile, Eric Hamilton, a lawyer for the Justice Department, argued that the military deployment is legal, with the purpose of protecting federal property and personnel. He said that no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act exists. The federal government's only witness — Maj. Gen. Scott Sherman, who was at one point commanding general of the Guard task force in Los Angeles — said he was instructed "that we were not conducting law enforcement operations and that we were there to serve the United States." "We took our duty very seriously, and care and professionalism was always exhibited," he said. Mr. Trump justified the deployment using a law called Title 10, which allows the president to call up Guard forces during a "rebellion," or if he is unable "with the regular forces to execute the laws of the United States." In an early June memo, Mr. Trump said the protests in Los Angeles "constitute a form of rebellion" and endangered federal agents. Breyer had previously ruled that Mr. Trump used Title 10 unlawfully, but he was overruled by an appellate court that said Mr. Trump had discretion to decide if that law applied. Since then, most of the troops have left Los Angeles, with roughly 300 Guard forces remaining. But the issue has drawn more attention in recent days, as the Trump administration deploys National Guard forces to Washington, D.C. The administration says that deployment is necessary to support law enforcement and crack down on violent crime, but local leaders have condemned the federal government's intervention. Strong cautioned that "Los Angeles is only the beginning," citing recent comments from Mr. Trump that she said indicated he may deploy the National Guard to other cities, including Oakland and New York. A "constitutional exception?" Parts of Tuesday's testimony hinged on an alleged "constitutional exception" to the Posse Comitatus Act. At one point, Sherman referred to a "constitutional exception." He testified that he was advised federal troops were allowed to do "four things" that would normally be barred under the law — security patrols, traffic control, crowd control and riot control — "because it was in line with what the President was directing" and "what the Secretary of Defense was directing." But Judge Breyer was unaware of such an exception and pressed Sherman on the issue. "I'm not a lawyer," said Sherman. "That may be to your credit," responded Breyer. Breyer later asked if Sherman ever received legal advice that if the Guard task force engaged in certain activities, it would violate the Posse Comitatus Act. Sherman testified that he was told, since Mr. Trump's memo said the Los Angeles protests were a form of rebellion that prevented federal agents from doing their jobs, that triggered the constitutional exception. "This is all the way from the top of DOD down to Task Force 51," he said. California's attorney, Strong, disputed this "mysterious constitutional exception," arguing that neither the president nor the secretary of defense "can create an exception to the Posse Comitatus Act." "That means all the directives we've seen the past two days are wrong and what they told soldiers to do was illegal," she said. "Those directives are based on a constitutional exception that doesn't exist." One exception to the Posse Comitatus Act is the Insurrection Act, which lets the president use the military to enforce the law during an insurrection. Mr. Trump has not invoked that law. "If he calls something a rebellion, it is a rebellion?" Mr. Trump's description of the Los Angeles protests as a "rebellion" was raised again in court on Tuesday, after Sherman testified Monday that he didn't hear the term used to describe the demonstrations. Sherman clarified on Tuesday that he knew Mr. Trump's memo called the protests a rebellion. The judge later pushed back against the idea that Mr. Trump has the discretion to decide if a "rebellion" is occurring. "If he calls something a rebellion, it is a rebellion?" Breyer asked, repeatedly. The federal government's attorney, Hamilton, said that the president is commander in chief, and he's entitled to deference in that judgment. But when asked by the judge multiple times, he acknowledged that it doesn't make it a rebellion. Breyer further questioned Mr. Trump's ability to dictate what the law allows, when Hamilton argued that there was no violation of the Posse Comitatus Act because the military was serving a protective function in Los Angeles. "Are you saying that because the president says it, therefore it is?" said Breyer. "If the president says you can do X," he continued, "because the president has said it, that's sufficient to take it out of the Posse Comitatus Act?" The trial will conclude on Wednesday.
Bloomberg
a minute ago
- Bloomberg
Modi Champions Farmers in Trump Rift as State Election Looms
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his ruling party have seized on growing friction with US President Donald Trump to bolster support from farmers ahead of a crucial state election. A day after Trump stunned New Delhi by slapping 50% tariffs on the nation's exports to the US, Modi promised supporters he'd protect the interests of farmers, even if it means he pays a personal price for it. Modi's top aides, including his trade minister, have signaled India won't give in to US pressure to open up its agriculture and dairy markets to American imports. On Tuesday, leading farmer groups met with India's agriculture minister in New Delhi to pledge support to the government.
