Trump Tells Gulf Hosts He's ‘Not Thrilled' With Their Gift
President Donald Trump joked that he was 'not thrilled' with the tiny amount of oil he received as a gift during his trip to the United Arab Emirates on Friday.
A clip shared online by Margo Martin, Trump's special assistant and communications adviser, captured the moment the president was presented with a memento during his diplomatic visit to the Gulf nation.
The gift, given by Sultan Al Jaber, head of the state-owned Abu Dhabi National Oil Co., was a box containing a small amount of Murban crude oil visible through glass.
'This is the highest quality oil there is on the planet, and they only gave me a drop,' Trump said, prompting laughter from those around him. 'So I'm not thrilled, but it's better than no drop.'
Trump's visit to the UAE on Friday marks the end of his four-day charm offensive in the Middle East, which also included stops in Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
At a business forum held Friday at Qasr Al Watan in Abu Dhabi, Trump was wooed by industry leaders and oil tycoons. It was there that Al Jaber presented him with the small memento.
UAE President Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan was also in attendance as Trump toured the event held at the royal palace.
During the meet-and-greet, Trump was shown a presentation highlighting the UAE's aviation sector, where he offered praise for Boeing.
'It's just my opinion, but Boeing makes the best planes,' Trump said, reported Sky News. 'They've had some headaches over the last few years, but they make the best planes.'
Trump's Middle East tour has been plagued by controversy over his plans to accept a $400 million Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the Qatari royal family to use in place of the current Air Force One.
On Thursday, the White House announced a major deal between Boeing and GE Aerospace with Etihad Airways, the UAE's national airline.
As part of efforts to strengthen ties between the U.S. and the Gulf state, Etihad agreed to purchase 28 U.S.-made Boeing 787 and 777X jets powered by GE engines in a deal worth over $14.5 billion.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
23 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.
Business Insider
28 minutes ago
- Business Insider
Trump Ready to Ditch His Tesla Car amid Musk Fallout: 'I Might Just Get Rid of It'
WASHINGTON — June 7, 2025 President Donald Trump is distancing himself from Elon Musk—publicly and materially. According to The Washington Post, Trump has told aides in recent days that he is considering selling or giving away the red Tesla (TSLA) Model S he purchased in March, a gesture that once symbolized his support for Musk. Confident Investing Starts Here: 'I might just get rid of it,' Trump told aides, according to a senior White House official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. The car, still parked near the White House as of this week, has become a visible casualty of the rapidly souring relationship between Trump and Musk. The split followed Musk's harsh criticism of the administration's latest domestic policy bill, which he publicly called a 'disgusting abomination.' That comment triggered a sharp response from the president, both publicly and privately. On Air Force One, when asked by a reporter about Musk's alleged drug use, Trump replied: 'I don't want to comment on his drug use. I don't know what his status is.' 'I read an article in The New York Times. I thought it was, frankly, it sounded very unfair to me.' But privately, Trump has reportedly told associates that Musk is 'crazy' and blamed his behavior on drug use, according to The New York Times. Musk Gave No Public Comment on the Car—But a Hint at Peace? As of Saturday afternoon, Elon Musk has not issued any public statement specifically addressing Trump's decision to unload the Tesla. However, he did respond to a suggestion from investor Bill Ackman on X that the two men should reconcile for the good of the country. 'You're not wrong,' Musk replied—his only recent public comment that could be interpreted as a gesture toward de-escalation. Beyond that, Musk has been active on X in recent days, directing criticisms at others, including Steve Bannon and critics of Tesla, but has avoided commenting directly on Trump's actions regarding the car or federal contracts. Trump Weighs Tesla Breakup The sale—or symbolic disposal—of the Tesla would mark a final, visual severing of a political and personal alliance that once had significant policy weight. Musk had been one of Trump's most prominent business backers, and the March purchase of the Model S was, at the time, framed by aides as a nod of approval to the entrepreneur's role in the administration. Now, according to officials, the car is being referred to inside the West Wing as a political relic. And while no final decision has been made, staff say it's become a quiet but pointed symbol of Trump's intent to distance himself from Musk for good. Trump himself, speaking about Musk during a press gaggle on June 6, said: 'I'm very disappointed in Elon. I've helped Elon a lot.' Whether the car is sold, donated, or simply removed from view, it now stands as a monument to one of the most dramatic falling-outs in recent political history. Is Tesla Stock Still a Buy? Meanwhile, Wall Street isn't exactly bullish on Musk's flagship automaker. According to TipRanks, Tesla currently holds a 'Hold' rating based on 37 analyst reviews over the past three months. It's a split camp: 16 analysts rate it a Buy, 10 say Hold, and 11 recommend Sell — a clear reflection of the uncertainty swirling around the company. The market seems just as cautious. The average 12-month price target for TSLA is $284.37, suggesting a 3.7% downside from its current level.
37 minutes ago
Democratic states double down on laws resisting Trump's immigration crackdown
As President Donald Trump's administration targets states and local governments for not cooperating with federal immigration authorities, lawmakers in some Democratic-led states are intensifying their resistance by strengthening state laws restricting such cooperation. In California alone, more than a dozen pro-immigrant bills passed either the Assembly or Senate this week, including one prohibiting schools from allowing federal immigration officials into nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant. Other state measures have sought to protect immigrants in housing, employment and police encounters, even as Trump's administration has ramped up arrests as part of his plan for mass deportations. In Connecticut, legislation pending before Democratic Gov. Ned Lamont would expand a law that already limits when law enforcement officers can cooperate with federal requests to detain immigrants. Among other things, it would let 'any aggrieved person' sue municipalities for alleged violations of the state's Trust Act. Two days after lawmakers gave final approval to the measure, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security included Connecticut on a list of hundreds of 'sanctuary jurisdictions' obstructing the enforcement of federal immigration laws. The list later was removed from the department's website after criticism that it errantly included some local governments that support Trump's immigration policies. Since taking office in January, Trump has enlisted hundreds of state and local law enforcement agencies to help identify immigrants in the U.S. illegally and detain them for potential deportation. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement now lists 640 such cooperative agreements, a nearly fivefold increase under Trump. Trump also has lifted longtime rules restricting immigration enforcement near schools, churches and hospitals, and ordered federal prosecutors to investigate state or local officials believed to be interfering with his crackdown on illegal immigration. The Department of Justice sued Colorado, Illinois and New York, as well as several cities in those states and New Jersey, alleging their policies violate the U.S. Constitution or federal immigration laws. Just three weeks after Colorado was sued, Democratic Gov. Jared Polis signed a wide-ranging law expanding the state's protections for immigrants. Among other things, it bars jails from delaying the release of inmates for immigration enforcement and allows penalties of up to $50,000 for public schools, colleges, libraries, child care centers and health care facilities that collect information about people's immigration status, with some exceptions. Polis rejected the administration's description of Colorado as a 'sanctuary state,' asserting that law officers remain 'deeply committed' to working with federal authorities on criminal investigations. 'But to be clear, state and local law enforcement cannot be commandeered to enforce federal civil immigration laws,' Polis said in a bill-signing statement. Illinois also has continued to press pro-immigrant legislation. A bill recently given final approval says no child can be denied a free public education because of immigration status — something already guaranteed nationwide under a 1982 U.S. Supreme Court decision. Supporters say the state legislation provides a backstop in case court precedent is overturned. The bill also requires schools to develop policies on handling requests from federal immigration officials and allows lawsuits for alleged violations of the measure. Democratic-led states are pursuing a wide range of means to protect immigrants. A new Oregon law bars landlords from inquiring about the immigration status of tenants or applicants. New laws in Washington declare it unprofessional conduct for bail bond agents to enforce civil immigration warrants, prohibit employers from using immigration status to threaten workers and let employees use paid sick leave to attend immigration proceedings for themselves or family members. Vermont last month repealed a state law that let law enforcement agencies enter into immigration enforcement agreements with federal authorities during state or national emergencies. They now need special permission from the governor to do so. As passed by the House, Maryland legislation also would have barred local governments from reaching immigration enforcement agreements with the federal government. That provision was removed in the Senate following pushback from some of the seven Maryland counties that currently have agreements. The final version, which took effect as law at the start of June, forbids public schools and libraries from granting federal immigration authorities access to nonpublic areas without a judicial warrant or 'exigent circumstances.' Maryland Del. Nicole Williams said residents' concerns about Trump's immigration policies prompted her to sponsor the legislation. 'We believe that diversity is our strength, and our role as elected officials is to make sure that all of the residents within our community — regardless of their background — feel safe and comfortable,' Williams said. Though legislation advancing in Democratic states may shield against Trump's policies, 'I would say it's more so to send a message to immigrant communities to let them know that they are welcome,' said Juan Avilez, a policy associate at the American Immigration Council, a nonprofit advocacy group. In California, a law that took effect in 2018 already requires public schools to adopt policies 'limiting assistance with immigration enforcement to the fullest extent possible.' Some schools have readily applied the law. When DHS officers attempted a welfare check on migrant children at two Los Angeles elementary schools in April, they were denied access by both principals. Legislation passed by the state Senate would reinforce such policies by specifically requiring a judicial warrant for public schools to let immigration authorities into nonpublic areas, allow students to be questioned or disclose information about students and their families. 'Having ICE in our schools means that you'll have parents who will not want to send their kids to school at all,' Democratic state Sen. Scott Wiener said in support of the bill. But some Republicans said the measure was 'injecting partisan immigration policies' into schools. 'We have yet to see a case in California where we have scary people in masks entering schools and ripping children away,' said state Sen. Marie Alvarado-Gil. 'Let's stop these fear tactics that do us an injustice.'
