
What Trump's ‘palace in the sky' gift from Qatar reveals
It certainly looks as if policy is for sale in the Trump administration. After all, the president's primary domestic policy deputy, Elon Musk, gained his position in the administration more or less by purchasing it: he is the richest man in the world, and the primary funder of Trump's last presidential campaign, and it is seemingly by this virtue – does he have any others? – that Musk has been granted the authority to dismantle large swaths of the federal bureaucracy.
This is something of a pattern for Donald Trump. In his first term, it became de rigueur for foreign dignitaries to stay at Trump's hotel on trips to Washington, a practice long perceived to be a way of currying favor with the president by spending money at his businesses. Trump funneled money to his hotel business from domestic sources, too: when secret service agents were required to stay at Trump's hotels, they were charged exorbitant rates – including after he left office. Before their recent worldwide jaunt making deals with foreign governments and businesses that will financially benefit their father – including plans for a major new gold course in Qatar, built in partnership with a company controlled by the royal family – Trump's sons launched $Trump, a cryptocurrency coin – that ever-popular scheme of shameless millennial grifters.
Foreign powers, major businesses, and wealthy individuals whose interests might be affected by Trump administration policy have all rushed to invest, a not-so-subtle way of ingratiating themselves to the president with money. Last month, Trump announced that the biggest investors in the scheme could meet with him personally, either at one of his clubs or at the White House: a literal auction of access to the president. His ear is for sale to the highest bidder.
This kind of behavior from the Trump administration has gone on for so long that it is hard to rouse the media to attention to cover it. Their standards for the ethical conduct of politicians – or, at least, of Republicans – have lowered so dramatically that it's hard to tell if they have any. Personal enrichment by politicians is no longer treated as a scandal, a state of affairs that's been helped along not only by how pervasive corruption has become, but by the US supreme court's repeated and dramatic efforts to narrow federal anti-bribery statutes and the longstanding non-enforcement of the constitution's emoluments clause.
Amid this non-response to influence peddling and back-scratching more broadly, it is sometimes difficult to get Americans to notice just how flagrantly their president is on the take. If Trump has been selling access and influence for years – if he has not divested from his companies, which are now supposedly run by his sons, and continues to profit from the largesse of billionaires foreign and domestic, is it really a story that he still does so now?
And so it is a testament to the brazenness and almost cartoonish excess, of Trump's dealings that one of them has gained so much coverage: his willingness to accept a $400m luxury 747 plane, decked out so lavishly that it has been called a 'palace in the sky', from the royal family of Qatar.
The plane, Trump says, is a gift. 'It's a great gesture from Qatar. I appreciate it very much. I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer,' he told reporters. Trump has long bemoaned what he considers the inadequate state of the two aircraft that currently serve as Air Force One; he has been angling for a fancier plane since his first term. As that has been slow to materialize, the Qataris appear to have stepped in with an alternative: they will give Trump is 'palace in the sky' to serve as Air Force One, and the plane would then be transferred, after he leaves office, to his presidential library.
The mainstream media has been reluctant to name this exchange as a bribe. After all, Trump insists that the aircraft is being gifted to him, in exchange for nothing. 'The Defense Department is getting a GIFT, FREE OF CHARGE,' he wrote on social media. Responding to suggestions that he pay for the plane to avoid the appearance of impropriety, he countered, 'Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!!'
Later, in an interview with the New York Times' Maggie Haberman, Trump elaborated further: 'I mean, I could be a stupid person say, 'No, we don't want a free, very expensive airplane.' But it was – I thought it was a great gesture.' He went on to explain that he does indeed believe that the 'gift' of the airplane is a recognition of his own stance toward Qatar, which has changed dramatically since he called the nation a sponsor of terror and endorsed a regional blockade during his first term. 'I think it was a gesture because of the fact that we help,' he said of Qatar. 'If it wasn't for us, they probably wouldn't exist right now.'
What is remarkable about the plane episode is not just Trump's willingness to accept a lavish gift from another state, but the impotence and indifference of congress and the judiciary to punish him for it.
To accept a gift from a foreign government is a plain violation of the unambiguous text of the constitution. That the US supreme court has made federal anti-bribery laws nearly impossible to prosecute has made a legal response to this kind of behavior even harder. That Congress – controlled by a Republican majority more interested in benefitting from Trump's largesse than in checking his excesses or asserting their own constitutional prerogatives – is both unable and unwilling to stop him does not change it either. Trump will get away with his plane stunt: we know he will, because the constitutional checks on his power have been made deliberately useless. But no one should be confused about what he is doing.
Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Sky News
34 minutes ago
- Sky News
Has Gavin Newsom just made his bid for the presidency?
👉 Follow Trump100 on your podcast app 👈 On day 143 of Donald Trump's presidency, Martha Kelner and James Matthews discuss California Governor Gavin Newsom's 'presidential' televised address to the nation, and his case that Donald Trump's extraordinary decision to send troops to LA against his wishes has put the country on the brink of authoritarianism. Plus, billionaire Elon Musk has apologised to Trump over his explosive social media posts following his departure from the administration. But is it enough for the pair to make up? If you've got a question you'd like the Trump100 team to answer, you can email it to trump100@ You can also watch all episodes on our YouTube channel.


Daily Mail
39 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Trump secretary sets the record straight after being 'body-checked' by Elon Musk
Trump's Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent faced an unusual line of questioning on Wednesday when he testified on Capitol Hill. During a hearing on his department's budget before the Ways and Means Committee, Bessent was grilled about whether he really tackled Elon Musk in the White House last month. 'Mr. Secretary, how are you doing?' Representative Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.) said innocuously. 'So far, so good,' Bessent quipped back. 'Okay. I was just curious because I know Elon Musk body checked you at the White House. No animosity to Elon Musk, right?' Gomez continued. 'You know that?' Bessent asked about the sparring event. 'That's what I heard,' Gomez responded. Bessent had been partaking in three days of trade negotiations in London and had not yet been questioned about the story. 'So you believe, you believe what you read on Breitbart is what you are telling us, Congressman,' Bessent pressed. 'I didn't know ... If it's too sensitive for you I won't ask that question, but let me move' Gomez flubbed. 'I will take South Carolina over South Africa any day', Bessent replied, referring to his home state versus Musk's nation of birth. Musk was spotted with a black eye as he delivered a sort of farewell address in the Oval Office upon departing from his role as a 'special government employee' heading up Trump's Department of Government Efficiency DOGE). At the time, Musk claimed that the black eye was the result of roughhousing with his young son, X í¿ A-12, who is more commonly know as X. But speculation grew as more was revealed about his tense standoff with Bessent. Former Chief Strategist Steve Bannon told in May that Musk's turbulent time in the White House was marred when he was confronted over wild promises to save the administration 'a trillion dollars'. That's when an irate Musk physically 'shoved' 62-year-old Bessent. 'Scott Bessent called him out and said, "You promised us a trillion dollars (in cuts), and now you're at like $100 billion, and nobody can find anything, what are you doing?"' Bannon revealed. And that's when Elon got physical. It's a sore subject with him. 'It wasn't an argument, it was a physical confrontation. Elon basically shoved him.' Bannon said the physical altercation came as the two billionaires moved from the Oval Office to outside Chief of Staff Susie Wiles' office, and then outside the office of the then National Security Advisor, Mike Waltz.


Reuters
40 minutes ago
- Reuters
United Nations to vote to demand immediate Gaza ceasefire over US, Israel opposition
UNITED NATIONS, June 12 (Reuters) - The United Nations General Assembly will vote on Thursday on a draft resolution that demands an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire in the war in Gaza after the United States vetoed a similar effort in the Security Council last week. The 193-member General Assembly is likely to adopt the text with overwhelming support, diplomats say, despite Israel lobbying countries this week against taking part in what it called a "politically-motivated, counter-productive charade." General Assembly resolutions are not binding but carry weight as a reflection of the global view on the war. Previous demands by the body for an end to the war between Israel and Palestinian militants Hamas have been ignored. Unlike the U.N. Security Council, no country has a veto in the General Assembly. Thursday's vote also comes ahead of a U.N. conference next week that aims to reinvigorate an international push for a two-state solution between Israel and the Palestinians. The United States has urged countries not to attend. In a note seen by Reuters, the U.S. warned that "countries that take anti-Israel actions on the heels of the conference will be viewed as acting in opposition to U.S. foreign policy interests and could face diplomatic consequences." The U.S. last week vetoed a draft U.N. Security Council resolution that also demanded an "immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire" and unhindered aid access in Gaza, arguing it would undermine U.S.-led efforts to broker a ceasefire. The other 14 countries on the council voted in favor of the draft as a humanitarian crisis grips the enclave of more than 2 million people, where the U.N. warns famine looms and aid has only trickled in since Israel lifted an 11-week blockade last month. The draft resolution to be voted on by the General Assembly on Thursday demands the release of hostages held by Hamas, the return of Palestinian prisoners detained by Israel and the full withdrawal of Israeli forces from Gaza. It demands unhindered aid access and "strongly condemns the use of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare and the unlawful denial of humanitarian access and depriving civilians ... of objects indispensable to their survival, including willfully impeding relief supply and access." "This is both false and defamatory," Israel's U.N. Ambassador Danny Danon wrote in a letter to U.N. member states, sent on Tuesday and seen by Reuters. Danon described the General Assembly draft resolution as an "immensely flawed and harmful text," urging countries not to take part in what he said was a "farce" that undermines hostage negotiations and fails to condemn Hamas. In October 2023 the General Assembly called for an immediate humanitarian truce in Gaza with 120 votes in favor. In December 2023, 153 countries voted to demand an immediate humanitarian ceasefire. Then in December last year the body demanded - with 158 votes in favor - an immediate, unconditional and permanent ceasefire. The war in Gaza has raged since 2023 after Hamas militants killed 1,200 people in Israel in an October 7 attack and took some 250 hostages back to the enclave, according to Israeli tallies. Many of those killed or captured were civilians. Israel responded with a military campaign that has killed over 54,000 Palestinians, according to Gaza health authorities. They say civilians have borne the brunt of the attacks and that thousands more bodies have been lost under rubble.