Qatar's $400-million aircraft gift to Trump: Legal, ethical concerns up in the air
Almost two centuries later, President Donald Trump is setting the stage to accept a $400-million gift — a Boeing 747 jet from the royal family of Qatar. The jet, officials say, would serve temporarily as Air Force One and eventually find a home in Trump's presidential library.
The offer has ignited a firestorm, not only because of the staggering value but because it challenges a longstanding tradition of restraint around foreign gifts.
The plane in question — the luxury Boeing 747 fitted with three bedrooms, a private lounge, and an executive office — is one of the most extravagant gifts ever offered to a US president. The plane is likely to be re-fitted and used temporarily as Air Force One.
The two Air Force One planes have been in use for almost 40 years, and their revamp has been delayed for various reasons. Trump, who is annoyed by the delays, has called the offer from Qatar 'a great gesture' that would be 'stupid' to turn down.
Trump posted on Truth Social: 'The Defense Department is getting a gift, free of charge, of a 747 aircraft to replace the 40-year-old Air Force One, temporarily, in a very public and transparent transaction.'
A Qatari official was quoted by CNN as saying that the plane was being given from the Qatari defence ministry to the Pentagon, and that it would be modified to meet Air Force One's safety and security standards.
Speaking about the matter, Andrew Moran, a constitutional law expert at London Metropolitan University, told the BBC: 'This is certainly stretching the Constitution. We have not seen a gift on this scale or of this nature in American history.'
However, when explaining the deal, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt had said, 'The legal details of that are still being worked out, but of course, any donation to this government is always done in full compliance with the law.'
Apart from the question of accepting a staggeringly expensive gift, there are two other concerns — the Air Force One is the official vehicle of the US President, and a foreign nation supplying it sits odd with Trump's claims of making the US a manufacturing powerhouse. Then there is the security aspect. The Air Force One is equipped with a variety of defence and communications equipment. Accommodating all of this on a foreign-made, refitted plane would not be easy.
The Trump administration has faced controversies over foreign gifts earlier too. A 2023 House Oversight Committee report found that over 100 items from foreign governments were unaccounted for, including a life-size painting of Trump from El Salvador and golf clubs from Japan valued at over $250,000. A spokesperson for Trump said the items were received either before or after his presidency.
The US Constitution's Emoluments Clause — Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 — was designed to shield the republic from foreign influence.
The clause reads: 'No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.'
Besides the clause, there have been a number of laws also by the Congress related to lawmakers accepting foreign gifts, such as the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act of 1966, which means that congressional consent is required for the acceptance of foreign gifts above a certain value.
US law allows federal officials to retain gifts valued under $480. Anything above that amount is legally considered a gift to the United States, not to the individual. It must be reported and handled through the White House Gift Unit.
If a president desires to keep a gift personally, they can purchase it at fair market value.
How have some notable gifts been handled in the past?
Foreign dignitaries have routinely offered US Presidents numerous gifts — from animals to artwork to antiquities. Most of these items are not kept by the president personally, but are instead logged, assessed for value, and often stored in the National Archives or displayed in presidential libraries.
President George W Bush once received 300 pounds of raw lamb from Argentina and a puppy from Bulgaria. Neither remained in the White House. The puppy was rehomed via the National Archives; the lamb, like many food gifts, was reportedly destroyed due to safety concerns.
During Bill Clinton's presidency, the President of Azerbaijan gifted a custom-woven rug featuring portraits of Clinton and his wife Hillary. It now resides in government storage. Barack Obama's gifts ranged from cufflinks to a double-decker bus pencil sharpener, all catalogued and archived.
Even Queen Victoria's gift of the 'Resolute Desk' to President Rutherford B Hayes in 1880 —crafted from the timbers of the HMS Resolute — required a diplomatic note and congressional consultation before it took its place in the Oval Office.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scroll.in
15 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
Ready to discuss Pahalgam attack, Operation Sindoor in Parliament, says Centre
The Centre is ready to discuss the Pahalgam terror attack and Operation Sindoor in Parliament as long as 'certain rules' and conventions are followed, Union minister Kiren Rijiju said on Sunday. The parliamentary affairs minister's comment came after an all-party meeting convened by the Union government ahead of the Monsoon Session. The Opposition has demanded discussions on a range of matters. This includes the terror attack in Pahalgam, United States President Donald Trump's repeated claims that he brokered a ceasefire between India and Pakistan during Operation Sindoor and the special intensive revision of voter rolls being conducted in Bihar. Rijiju said that the government had 'patiently' heard suggestions from Opposition leaders and members of the ruling coalition during the all-party meeting. 'The government will never shy away from discussion unless it is prevented under certain rules or certain provisions,' he said. The Monsoon Session of Parliament will begin on Monday and conclude on August 21. Held All Party Meeting ahead of the Monsoon Session 2025. The govt is looking forward to a session marked by dialogue, cooperation and very meaningful outcomes. #Parliament — Kiren Rijiju (@KirenRijiju) July 20, 2025 Opposition seeks Modi's response Gaurav Gogoi, the Congress' deputy leader in the Lok Sabha, told reporters after the meeting that his party had sought a statement from Prime Minister Narendra Modi in the House on Trump's claim, the security 'lapses' that led to the Pahalgam attack and the revision of electoral rolls in Bihar, The New Indian Express reported. 'It is the moral responsibility of the PM to answer on these issues,' PTI quoted him as saying. Reiterating the demand on social media, Congress leader Jairam Ramesh said that the Opposition had also flagged the situation in Manipur, the restoration of statehood to Jammu and Kashmir and the demand for Sixth Schedule status for Ladakh, among others. The Ladakhi leadership has sought a constitutional guarantee under the Sixth Schedule of the Constitution, which guarantees protections over land and a nominal autonomy for the country's tribal areas. आज मोदी सरकार द्वारा बुलाई गई सर्वदलीय बैठक में मेरे साथी, लोकसभा में कांग्रेस संसदीय दल के उपनेता @GauravGogoiAsm ने भारतीय राष्ट्रीय कांग्रेस की ओर से संसद में चर्चा के लिए निम्नलिखित मुद्दों पर विस्तृत चर्चा की मांग रखी- 1. पहलगाम, ऑपरेशन सिंदूर, जम्मू-कश्मीर के उपराज्यपाल,… — Jairam Ramesh (@Jairam_Ramesh) July 20, 2025 Communist Party of India (Marxist) MP John Brittas urged Modi to speak on the Pahalgam attack and Trump's remarks on India-Pakistan ceasefire, The New Indian Express reported. Aam Aadmi Party MP Sanjay Singh also raised Trump's claims and what he described as the 'poll scam' linked to the Bihar electoral roll revision, the newspaper reported. Responding to the demand for Modi to address Parliament, Rijiju said on Sunday: 'I want to make it clear the prime minister remains in Parliament except during foreign travel…The prime minister always remains in Parliament, but the prime minister does not remain in the House all the time.' He added that in Parliament, the Cabinet functions through collective responsibility.
Scroll.in
15 minutes ago
- Scroll.in
From the biography: How Atal Bihari Vajpayee tried to balance Pakistan, USA, Europe and China
Holi 2003 at 7, Race Course Road was special. When Vajpayee came out onto the lawns to meet ministers and well-wishers, someone placed a pagri on his head. One by one, everyone smeared colours on his face and kurta. Putting formality aside the ever-stern Yashwant Sinha sang out-of-sync Holi songs, complete with a dholak. The prime minister was made to move his feet and hands to dance a little. Even if he looked clownish and a little frail, there was no mistaking the cheer and relief on everyone's face. They were ringing in a milestone, at once personal and historical. Atal Behari Vajpayee had completed five years in office, and would finish his term – the first non-Congress prime minister since Independence to pull this off. There was no more talk of resignation or immediate succession, no rumours of cancer. In his 79th year, he walked slowly, his ears bearing heavy hearing aids. But he had voluntarily cut down on fried and sugary foods, and shed 4 kilos. Some of the motivation may have come from Rajkumari Kaul's heart attack the previous March. He looked slimmer, more relaxed and confident, more in command. He seemed willing to embrace his many contradictions, determined to enjoy the last lap: he aimed higher. He knew this would be the 'last chance for talks, at least in my lifetime'. Leadership in early 21st-century Asia no longer needed map-makers; it required the foresight to resolve old disputes by calculated compromises, to settle the old-drawn maps. The only way a modern prime minister could vault to the tier-I list was to steer through moments of crisis. He wanted to attempt to resolve Kashmir, to which the possibility of an American war in Iraq had added yet another layer of complication. Bush wanted to safeguard his country against 'the conjoined threat of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and links to terrorist groups'. At first, Vajpayee gave Bush the benefit of the doubt, urging Iraq to 'abide by the UN resolutions' and destroy the weapons of mass destruction 'that it is alleged to possess'. But the UN inspected over 300 sites, and did not find any evidence of WMDs. Old-school American conservatives like Kissinger were blunter, and they justified the invasion of Iraq, saying toppling the Taliban was not enough: it hadn't fully scratched the American itch for revenge against Islamic extremists. The rest of the world saw it mostly as a futile and reckless war based on poor intelligence – a war that risked further destabilisation of West Asia. For India, the costs of such a war far outweighed the benefits. It was dependent on Gulf oil, and inflation was bad news for a government seeking a fresh term. The crisis also brought home the strategic nature of the oil sector, stalling the privatisation of HPCL and BPCL. The centre would have to arrange for the safe return of 4 million Indians working in the Gulf. Indian Muslims, wary of the saffron party after the Gujarat riots, were unanimous and vocal in opposing an American capture of Baghdad. Meanwhile, Bush took great delight in mocking the UN. The US introduced a resolution in the Security Council demanding that Iraq surrender all WMDs by 17 March, only to withdraw it on the last day for fear of defeat. Two days later, Bush invaded Iraq. The American president saw himself executing god's will by converting the dictator-run Iraq into a Western-style democracy. Most other countries did not want to fight America's war based on Bush's interpretation of the Bible. On the eve of the attack, Vajpayee was goaded in Parliament into taking an unequivocal position: 'The use of force by a superpower to change a regime is wrong and cannot be supported.' Afterwards, the MEA released a statement declaring that the military action 'lacks justification'. Bush called up the next day to ask Vajpayee to tone down India's opposition. The Western coalition toppled Baghdad on 9 April, forcing its old dictator, Saddam Hussein, to go into hiding. The resolution adopted in Parliament a few weeks later used the strong word 'ninda' of Hindi, meaning censure; the English version merely 'deplored' the US action. Vajpayee did not want to antagonise Bush, not the least because the Americans were mediating between India and Pakistan. Visiting the Valley on 18 April, primarily to lay the foundation stone for development works, he tucked in an extempore speech. For the first time since militancy broke out, a prime minister spoke in public in Srinagar. Standing behind a bulletproof podium at the Sher-e-Kashmir cricket stadium, he made an emotional plea: 'We have come to share your pain and grief.' He urged Kashmiris to shed the acrimonious, unrealistic goals of the past to look ahead towards a peaceful future. He had come prepared with a doctrine: Insaniyat, Jamhooriyat, Kashmiriyat. Humanism, Democracy, and Kashmir's age-old legacy of religious amity. Even if this was mostly atmospherics, the three principles offered a framework for the way ahead. At the Kashmir University convocation the next afternoon, he extended another olive branch: 'If Pakistan announces today that it has stopped the cross-border terrorism, I will send a senior MEA official to Islamabad tomorrow.' He invoked the impact of the Iraq war as a 'warning [to] the entire world, specially the developing countries … It is now important that we resolve our differences through dialogue'. It was not clear whether he was aggrieved over the humiliation of a friendly Asian nation by a rowdy superpower in flagrant disregard of the UN, or simply cashing in on the prevailing anti-American sentiments. Perhaps it was a bit of both. One could overlook the hidden irony behind Vajpayee privately seeking American intermediation only to condemn their foreign policy in public. It was a neat policy somersault: he had not discussed it with the CCS. The invitation to Pakistan came as a 'huge surprise' to his foreign minister. When the prime minister was shown an op-ed by an American commentator suggesting he was a Nobel Peace Prize contender, he was less than thrilled. You really think all of this is to win the Nobel, he said dismissively: 'Kya main yeh sab Nobel jeetne ke liye kar raha hoon?' There was another way to interpret his initiative. It was subtly directed at his domestic constituency – a bid to temper the Sangh Parivar's growing push to replicate the Modi model beyond Gujarat, which fuelled hatred of Muslims and Pakistan. Peace inside the home and on the borders was necessary for sustaining long-term economic growth as also for augmenting India's clout in the larger world. He was keen to lead the NDA to victory in the October 2004 general elections on his diplomatic and economic achievements. Musharraf tried to find out whether Vajpayee would want to speak over the phone. On the evening of 28 April, ten days after Vajpayee rolled his dice in Srinagar, he received a call from Zafarullah Jamali, his newly elected counterpart in Islamabad. Reading from notes prepared in advance, Jamali offered, among others, resumption of train, bus, and air services, full restoration of diplomatic missions. Vajpayee agreed to all except sporting ties, which could backfire unless infiltration came to a halt. What would be the reaction, he asked, if in the middle of a hockey match the terrorists massacre fifty innocents in Jammu?13 The ten-minute call broke the ice. The PMO's strategy was to move on parallel tracks: talk to the separatists in the valley and the government in Pakistan, then find a way to converge them. There was another complication. On a trip to Washington in May, Brajesh Mishra received a request that India join the 'stabilisation force' in post-war Iraq. Mishra had for a while pitched for an 'axis' between the USA, India, and Israel to fight Islamic terrorism. In fact, the US wanted both India and Pakistan to contribute peacekeeping boots on the ground. India was asked to dispatch a division to oversee the administration of Iraq's Kurdish north. The government was egged on by a section of the press to accept the US's request, as it would dramatically upgrade bilateral relations. Preparations began. For the first time, the American embassy briefed New Delhi from classified sources. The US was 'extremely keen' because the Indian troops had 'plenty of experience' in peacekeeping, 'they are well regarded, and they have large numbers'. The Indian Army 'identified the units that would be deployed'. Apart from Jaswant Singh and Brajesh Mishra, this time Advani as well as the army seemed open to the idea. The anti-American George Fernandes did not extend 'a full-blooded support, but the armed forces had primed him,' and the socialist defence minister allowed himself to be persuaded. All of this deepened the prime minister's dilemma. His instinctive reaction had been to refuse: the Indian troops would have to work under an American command. Nor did Vajpayee have the political space for such a commitment. With a raucous opposition, such a move was certain to be vetoed in Parliament. At an all-party meeting as well as over phone calls, Vajpayee prodded the elderly communists to protest more loudly in the street. When the CCS sat down in early May 2003 to take the final call, however, every single attendee backed the American demand: Advani stayed silent until Vajpayee asked for his opinion: 'Aap kya soch rahe hain?' Everyone spoke in favour. Vajpayee just sat, mum. He didn't say a word. There was deathly silence. He let the silence grow. Then he said, 'What would I say to the mothers when their children die?' There was stunned silence again. 'No,' he said, 'we can't send our boys.' Until July, New Delhi's reaction was to plead with the Americans to first obtain an 'explicit UN mandate'. This did not happen. Vajpayee managed to wriggle out citing tied-up hands. Only towards the end of the year – once it emerged that Iraq possessed no WMDs – he went public saying 'we do not want our jawaans to face bullets in a country which is our friend'. Iraq notwithstanding, he was received well on his foreign tours during the summer. His most important sojourn in Europe, in the last week of May 2003, took him to Germany, Russia, and France, the three countries which were at the forefront of American action in Iraq. India's new prestige had to do with a growing economy as well as its relationship with the US. At the same time, India wanted to flex its muscle on its own terms, not as an American satellite. With the leitmotif of Kashmir, he recalled in Berlin how he had once got a picture clicked near the Wall, and now it was happily demolished. His most important appearance was at a dinner that Vladimir Putin hosted to celebrate the tricentennial of his hometown, St Petersburg. A karate black belt and more than a generation younger than Vajpayee, Putin had confessed 'a great fondness' for the Indian patriarch. Except, of course, 'if he asked a question on Wednesday, he had to wait till Friday for the answer'. The accompanying media delegation went wild with excitement after seeing Vajpayee seated at the high table alongside the Russian first lady and the Bushes. The host had only aimed at a social mix, but the coverage back home heralded India's arrival on the world forum. The prime minister returned to quell a minor rebellion. While he was away, the party president Venkaiah Naidu had suggested that the BJP be jointly led by Advani and Vajpayee in 2004. It was a petty attempt by hardliners, all over again, to test the prime minister's reaction. Vajpayee was mighty annoyed that Naidu had invited party workers to felicitate him at 7 RCR for his successful foreign trip. The expelled Kalyan Singh had recently taken a swipe at Vajpayee and Mishra, calling them 'tired and retired'. At this felicitation event, Vajpayee threw everyone into a tizzy by declaring that he was neither tired nor retired, but the party must now be led by his successor: 'Advaniji ke netritva mein vijay ki ore aage badhein.' Naidu reached the podium to roll back his earlier twin-leader theory, but the damage had already been done. At a closed-door meeting later, Vajpayee chided Naidu for questioning his leadership right when he was breaking bread with the high and mighty world leaders. Two weeks later, Vajpayee alighted in Beijing for what was his most important trip of the year. The bustling Chinese capital was eerily quiet, with the SARS epidemic at its peak. This was his first visit to the country after the ill-fated 1979 trip. He had recently chatted up the ambassador in Beijing about the metamorphosis of its economy: 'Yeh Cheen nein itna chalaang kaise maara?' Over the five days he spent in China, he witnessed first-hand the epic transformation of the northern neighbour, especially in Shanghai: 'Such progress is to be seen to be believed.' At the top of the agenda was the signing of an agreement to reopen the Nathu La pass for trade. The two sides differed over India's desire for an explicit geographical reference. India was happy to recognise Renqinggang as belonging to the 'Tibet Autonomous Region, People's Republic of China', but the hosts were squeamish about accepting Nathu La as belonging to Sikkim in India. Brajesh Mishra and others burnt the proverbial midnight oil, but failed to convince the hosts. In a problem-solving mode, Vajpayee signed the joint statement, causing a furore back home. The border problem was discussed 'as perhaps never before', he responded when asked by the press, but rejecting the implication that he had sold out India's interests. The two countries would continue to remain suspicious about each other's intentions, and the rest of the border would remain disputed. But China soon modified its maps to show Sikkim as part of India.
Indian Express
15 minutes ago
- Indian Express
Trump pledged to save Afghans but UAE already sent some evacuees back, cable shows
Days before President Donald Trump said he would help Afghan evacuees who fled their country and were stuck in the United Arab Emirates, the Emirati government had already begun returning them to Afghanistan and informed Washington that it was doing so, according to an internal State Department cable seen by Reuters on Sunday. The UAE, a close security partner of the United States, agreed in 2021 to temporarily house several thousand Afghans evacuated from Kabul as the Taliban ousted the US-backed government during the final stages of the U.S.-led withdrawal. Throughout the years, about 17,000 Afghan evacuees have been processed through the Abu Dhabi facility, known as Emirates Humanitarian City. However, more than 30 remaining Afghans have been stuck with their fate in limbo. News outlet 'Just the News' reported on Sunday that UAE officials were preparing to hand over some Afghan refugees to the Taliban. 'I will try to save them, starting right now,' Trump said in a post on Truth Social on Sunday that linked to an article on the Afghans held in limbo there. However, it may already be too late for some. In a July 10 meeting with U.S. officials in Abu Dhabi, Salem al-Zaabi, UAE Special Advisor to the Foreign Minister, told the Americans that two families had been 'successfully and safely' sent back to Afghanistan in early July, the cable, which had the same date as the meeting, said. Al-Zaabi told the Americans that while the UAE understood the current policy from Washington, it was going to move to 'close this chapter for good' and therefore would move to return the remaining 25 individuals by Sunday, July 20, according to the cable. He added that the Emirati government would seek assurances from the Taliban that their safety is guaranteed. It was not immediately clear if the remaining individuals had been sent back or the circumstances of the two families returned to Afghanistan. The cable and the return of the two Afghan families back to Afghanistan have not been previously reported. Trump, based on his Truth Social post, appeared to be out of the loop on the UAE's plans. The State Department, the White House and the UAE government did not have immediate comment for this story. Al-Zaabi told the U.S. officials that the two families were returned to Afghanistan in early July 'at their request, since they were tired of waiting,' the cable said. But two sources familiar with the matter disputed that account saying that the UAE government and Taliban's ambassador to the UAE were making Afghan families at the Emirates Humanitarian City choose between signing a 'voluntary' deportation letter to Afghanistan or being arrested to be forcefully deported to the country on Monday. The cable also said Al-Zaabi asked the U.S. to coordinate 'perception management' to ensure Washington and Abu Dhabi were aligned on their messaging on the topic as the UAE did not want criticism from the NGOs 'due to the inability of the United States to resettle the population in the United States or elsewhere.' The fate of the more than 30 Afghan evacuees and how the administration handles their cases is crucial for the future of another 1,500 Afghan men, women and children who have been stuck in a similar facility in Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar. Former President Joe Biden's administration, since its chaotic U.S. troop withdrawal from Afghanistan, has brought nearly 200,000 Afghans to the United States. Trump, a Republican who promised a far-reaching immigration crackdown, suspended refugee resettlement after he took office in January. In April, the Trump administration terminated temporary deportation protections for thousands of Afghans in the US. Democrats have urged Trump to restore temporary protected status for Afghans, saying women and children could face particular harm under the Taliban-led government. Since seizing power, Afghanistan's Taliban administration has rolled back hard-fought rights won by Afghan women and girls during two decades of rule by American-backed governments. They have imposed limits on schooling, work and general independence in daily life. Refugees include family members of Afghan-American U.S. military personnel, children cleared to reunite with their parents, relatives of Afghans already admitted and tens of thousands of Afghans who worked for the U.S. government during the 20-year war. Advocacy group #AfghanEvac urged Trump to follow up on his post with action. 'That means working to immediately secure protections and departures for the Afghans at the Emirates Humanitarian City in UAE and Camp As Sayliyah in Qatar and ensuring they are not deported back into the hands of the Taliban,' the group said in a statement
