Donald Trump's New Air Force One 'Gift' From Qatar Will Likely Cost US $1B
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
A jet donated by Qatar that is expected to become President Donald Trump's next Air Force One could ultimately cost American taxpayers $1 billion or more in retrofitting and upgrades.
The free Air Force One from Qatar, which Trump has described as a gift, has raised eyebrows after a $934 million transfer of funds was made to an unnamed classified project from the Pentagon, with officials in the Air Force saying that millions of dollars were needed to pay for renovating the aircraft.
Newsweek has contacted the Air Force via email for more information.
Why It Matters
The Qatari jet, delivered as a "bona fide gift" to the United States, arrived at a time when the Pentagon sought alternatives to delayed Boeing aircraft for presidential use. While officials emphasized the absence of any quid pro quo, the process of converting a 13-year-old Boeing 747 into a secure, advanced command center for the president could add a significant, taxpayer-funded price tag that goes against the concept of a gift.
What To Know
On July 7, Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth and Qatari Deputy Prime Minister Saoud bin Abdulrahman Al-Thani signed a memorandum of understanding, detailing Qatar's "unconditional donation" of a Boeing jet to the Pentagon, with no payment made to Qatar.
The agreement explicitly said the gift should not be interpreted as bribery or an attempt to influence U.S. policy. The jet is being housed in San Antonio, awaiting extensive retrofitting and security upgrades before it can be used as Air Force One.
President Donald Trump disembarks from Air Force One upon his arrival at Prestwick Airport, south of Glasgow, on July 25.
President Donald Trump disembarks from Air Force One upon his arrival at Prestwick Airport, south of Glasgow, on July 25.
Getty Images
The renovation's official price is classified, but congressional budget analysis and reports from The New York Times have traced a $934 million transfer from the over-budget Sentinel nuclear missile modernization program, believed to be earmarked for the jet's transformation.
Additionally, officials within the Air Force told The New York Times that the Air Force was using funding initially ring-fenced for nuclear modernization to upgrade the new plane, which would explain why the $934 million transfer originated from the Pentagon's nuclear program.
"I think there has been a number thrown around on the order of $1 billion," Air Force Secretary Troy E. Meink told Congress in June. "But a lot of those costs associated with that are costs that we'd have experienced anyway, we will just experience them early."
What People Are Saying
President Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social in May: "The Boeing 747 is being given to the United States Air Force/Department of Defense, NOT TO ME! It is a gift from a Nation, Qatar, that we have successfully defended for many years. It will be used by our Government as a temporary Air Force One, until such time as our new Boeings, which are very late on delivery, arrive."
U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff told ABC in May: "It's a perfectly legal transaction; it's been vetted by White House counsel, by the Justice Department, there are outside law firms involved. So, it's a perfectly legal, government-to-government, department of defense-to-department of defense transaction that happens in the normal course, and has been happening in the normal course throughout our existence.
"Governments exchange services—in this case the president has done … an incredible array of wonderful deals and created all kinds of opportunities for this country, for our economy, for the growth of our economy, and everything is always with the mind of doing something good for the American public, for the American taxpayer. This is another example—they decided to donate something because of all the wonderful things we've done for them in the past."
What Happens Next
The Pentagon is finalizing the registration and preparing to begin upgrades at a Texas facility known for classified aviation work.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
The 2026 campaign has already kicked off, with ads focused on Medicaid, Trump tax cuts
By Helen Coster and James Oliphant NEW YORK (Reuters) -Residents of Columbus, Indiana awoke last week to a yellow billboard purchased by the Democratic National Committee blaring: 'Under Trump's Watch, Columbus Regional Health is Cutting Medical Services." Meanwhile, the National Republican Congressional Committee, which oversees races for the U.S. House of Representatives, this month launched a digital ad campaign touting President Donald Trump's tax cuts and blaming Democrats for spiking inflation. As members of Congress return to their home districts for the August recess, the Democratic and Republican parties are launching ad blitzes centered around the tax-cut and spending bill Trump signed into law on July 4, in an unofficial start to the 2026 midterm election campaign. Democrats are focusing their message around access to healthcare, three party operatives and three officials from allied groups told Reuters. Republicans are countering that the tax provisions will put more money in voters' pockets – particularly wage workers and seniors, four party operatives said. The bill makes permanent Trump's 2017 tax cuts and funds his immigration enforcement crackdown, while reducing health care and food aid. It devotes $170 billion to immigration enforcement while cutting $1.1 trillion from Medicaid and other public health programs and $186 billion in food assistance. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that 10 million people would lose their health insurance by 2034 as a result of the bill, and that the tax provisions and increased immigration and military spending would increase the federal deficit by $3.4 trillion over the next decade. "How voters feel about Trump and the economy may be the most important factor next fall - but so is how voters feel about the Republican response to their concern," said Jacob Rubashkin, a nonpartisan analyst with Inside Elections. Republican strategists concede that Democrats, who campaigned against the bill while it was working its way through the Republican-controlled House and Senate, are starting with an upper hand in messaging around the legislation. But they say they have plenty of time to sell the bill's benefits. "We will use every tool to show voters that the provisions in this bill are widely popular,' said Mike Marinella, a spokesman for the NRCC. And the party has a cash advantage. The RNC had $81 million in cash at the end of June, according to Federal Election Commission data, compared to the DNC's $15 million during the same period. The DNC has trailed the RNC in fundraising in the first half of the year at the same time as it has deepened its financial commitments, spending in every state, FEC disclosures show. The RNC also enjoys a huge asset in a sitting president who is still holding fundraisers for big-ticket donors. 'At the end of the day, Democrats got a jump start on messaging,' said a Republican Senate operative who asked to remain anonymous to discuss party strategy. 'They have won the battle. Now we have to focus on winning the war.' Republicans can only afford a net loss of two of the 220 seats they hold in the House to maintain control. In the Senate, they have a 53-47 advantage. "CRITICAL OPPORTUNITY" The messaging battle, largely focused on battleground states and districts, is key to defining the bill in the minds of voters. 'The bill is currently unpopular, and there's been a lot of conversation among Republicans about how to refocus on the more popular aspects and use the upcoming recess to sell the bill to skeptical voters,' Rubashkin said. According to a Reuters/Ipsos poll, conducted last month as the bill was moving through Congress, some 64% of registered voters oppose cuts to Medicaid and food stamps in return for lower taxes for everyone. Democrats are seizing on that sentiment, pushing the idea that Republicans have taken away healthcare to pay for tax giveaways for billionaires. The DNC has purchased billboards in a handful of Republican districts facing reduced services and shutdown of rural hospitals and health facilities. 'Republicans threw working families under the bus to fund tax cuts for the wealthy, and we'll never let them — or voters — forget that,' said DNC Deputy Communications Director Abhi Rahman in a statement to Reuters. 'This will define the midterms.' Republicans say the bill's provisions on tips, overtime and Social Security show the party is focused on issues affecting working families. They also point to a $50 billion fund the bill establishes to help rural hospitals. In a memo earlier this month, the National Republican Senatorial Committee encouraged candidates to talk about the bill in personalized terms, highlighting 'service industry workers who will keep more of their hard-earned tips,' 'first responders and critical workers who will keep more of their overtime pay' and 'working parents and caretakers who benefit from increased tax credits for child and dependent care.' Another Republican strategy memo prepared by Tony Fabrizio and David Lee, Trump's pollsters, urges candidates to "lead on kitchen-table issues." The memo was commissioned by One Nation, a super PAC that last week launched a $10-million-plus TV and digital ad blitz playing up the tax features of the bill. The ads will air in states like Georgia and Texas where Republicans are defending seats. Another Republican PAC, Americans for Prosperity, the conservative advocacy group founded by Charles Koch and the late David Koch, will launch a TV and digital ad campaign in key districts next month, said Bill Riggs, a spokesperson for AFP. And the American Action Network is running TV and digital ads in 29 battleground congressional districts in Arizona, California, New York and Pennsylvania, emphasizing tax cuts and border security. "It's a new America, full of hope, thanks to President Trump and House Republicans," the ad intones. 'TRUMP TAX' Democrats, meanwhile, are trying to tie Medicaid cuts to reduced healthcare access and higher costs. The DNC's website claims that the bill will "cost the poorest 10% of households $1,600 a year while raising the income of the richest 10% of Americans by $12,000 a year." Unrig Our Economy, a left-leaning outside group focused on populist economic messaging, is running ads in Iowa, Arizona and Pennsylvania depicting voters voicing frustration at their Republican lawmakers for voting for Trump's bill. 'I'm so angry that Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks just voted for the largest cut to Medicaid in history to give tax breaks to billionaires,' said one ad running in Iowa, featuring a Davenport resident identified as Maria. The group plans to spend $7 million by the end of the year, according to spokesperson Kobie Christian. On Monday the group launched a 'multi-million dollar' ad campaign focused on the Medicaid cuts in four Texas congressional districts. Protect Our Care, a left-leaning healthcare advocacy organization, said it plans to spend up to $10 million on ads in the first half of next year, largely focused on urging Republican lawmakers to restore funding to Medicaid. 'Republicans won't be able to spin their way out of their parents being kicked out of a nursing home,' said Brad Woodhouse, the group's executive director. Environmental groups are also targeting the bill's rollback of clean energy incentives. Climate Power and the League of Conservation Voters spent $500,000 on an ad pressuring lawmakers in six congressional districts to vote against the bill, claiming that it will increase electricity rates, according to League of Conservation Voters President Pete Maysmith. 'The bill just happened, so let's start communicating with people when it's fresh and happening,' said Maysmith. 'We don't want to show up later and try to pick up that conversation.'
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
William Watson: Government-managed trade is sure to fail again
Those are some trade deals Donald Trump is shaking hands on — but so far not releasing details about. The U.S. gets tariff-free access to other countries while other countries pay stiff across-the-board tariffs going into the U.S. The U.K. pays 10 per cent, the EU and Japan 15 per cent, Indonesia and the Philippines 19 per cent and Vietnam 20 per cent. What China will pay remains to be determined. It typically pushes back more in response to Trump's jibes and jabs. Perhaps President Xi Jinping read the sections of the Art of the Deal about the need to stand up to bullies. Silly question: If a virtue of tariffs is that they're clean and simple, as the U.S. president always says, wouldn't it be a lot easier to have the same across-the-board rate for all countries? And whatever happened to 'reciprocity,' which the White House was big on a couple of months ago? Tariffs of 10-20 per cent for other countries' goods going into the U.S. but zero for American goods entering other countries are hardly 'reciprocal.' Yes, the rates chosen supposedly reflect the amount of procedural protectionism or non-tariff barriers (NTBs) that countries impose on U.S. goods. Except that no systematic study of that in fact much-studied problem has produced numbers that look like the pattern the deals reveal. And of course the U.S. itself is no stranger to NTBs and procedural protectionism. Just ask our softwood lumber industry. What the emerging regime looks like most is affirmative action for American businesses. They evidently can't compete with wily foreigners deploying unfair practices against them. And they're unwilling to abide by the (presumably rigged) decisions of international trade tribunals set up, under U.S. leadership actually, to make sure governments discriminate as little as possible against one another's firms. Even as the Trump administration abolishes affirmative action from U.S. society in general, it imposes it in international trade. Also strange are the commitments by other countries to invest given dollar amounts in the U.S. and to buy given amounts of U.S. goods, especially Boeing aircraft. Japan's going to buy 100 Boeing planes (not clear yet whether doors will be extra) and invest $550 billion in the U.S., with the U.S. somehow getting 90 per cent of the profit on this investment. Details to follow. When we economists teach international trade theory we customarily talk about (to cite the classic example) Portugal selling wine to the U.K. in return for wool. But in the real world, the non-communist parts of it at least, countries generally don't buy and sell goods and services to each other. Rather, people and companies in their millions and billions decide what goods and services to buy and their accumulated choices generate the trade flows we see. That type of trade system accords very well with the traditionally very American view that governments should not run economies, people and businesses should, with the government restricting itself to policing property rights and providing good public services at a reasonable tax price. But now governments, America's included, apparently want to manage the intricate details of the supply chain. In support of the Trump tariffs, some American politicians say it's simply not efficient for car parts to cross the Canada-U.S. or U.S.-Mexico border several times before cars are complete, as sometimes happens. But who are they to say? Since 1965's Canada-U.S. Auto Pact car companies have decided, free of tariffs, how best to put cars together. If it made economic sense to make and assemble all the parts in one location — if that's what maxed out their profits — you can bet that's what they'd do. If they don't do that, it's because that isn't the most efficient way to do things, given costs, technologies and transportation costs. Politicians should stick to matters such as Jeffrey Epstein and let car companies figure out how best to make cars. Why have Americans traditionally resisted government micro-management of the economy? Have a listen to the soundtrack of Hamilton. Because they abhor the concentration of power in a politico-industrial complex. Because not even a stable genius in the White House — not to suggest that's what we have now — would be smart enough to outsmart the combined intelligence and creativity of the entire American population when channelled through price- and efficiency-revealing markets. And, finally, because the invisible hand of competition is the best way to restrain the grasping hand of corruption. Corruption is not unknown in the private sector, of course. Humans are humans everywhere and always prey to temptation. But if you have competition — which in a small country like Canada is often provided by imports and foreign investors — companies or individuals that go astray get punished in the marketplace. And decisions don't get made for political reasons. Donald Trump always says he wants Canadian auto jobs to move to Michigan and Ohio, which, no coincidence, are two battleground states. Every president, not just the transparently venal, will favour places he wants his party to win in the next election, whenever that is. The only way to avoid such corruption is to remove power from politicians and vest it in markets. William Watson: All checks, no balances here in Nastyland William Watson: Our better-funded military will need to be more lethal I do understand such arguments are in disfavour at the moment. I bet the future vindicates them, as it always does. But the process won't be fun. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
Yahoo
4 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Opinion: Forget the G7. We need an FT8 — a Free Trade Eight
By Kevin Lynch and Paul Deegan As a means of pursuing American interests, President Donald Trump clearly views tariffs as an alternative to military power. His MAGA base, deeply sceptical of foreign military engagements, supports tariffs pitched as getting back at others who have been ripping off America. 'Tariff Man' is welding geo-politics, geo-economics and populism into a new global American weapon — tariffs — while making almost no distinction between friend and foe. His tactics — threats to sovereignty, name-calling, flip-flops and Truth Social tirades — may appear haphazard but his strategy has become crystal clear. First, he intends to level a baseline tariff of 10 to 15 per cent against all countries to raise revenues to help pay for his 'One Big Beautiful Bill.' As Team Trump's reaction to the market's reaction to 'Liberation Day' tariffs showed, it is terrified of fixed-income vigilantes driving up long-term U.S. bond yields, especially given the historic increase in U.S. government debt. Trump would never admit his tariffs are a partial consumption tax but his threats to American retailers and producers not to raise prices show he understands they are. Second, Trump will threaten additional, higher tariffs to achieve trade-policy outcomes, whether it be: getting countries to buy specific American goods; opening up markets to U.S. exporters (think dairy and supply management for Canada); or supporting selected American producers (think copper, steel, and aluminum), supposedly in the interests of national security, with prohibitive import tariffs that are essentially a subsidy financed by higher prices for American consumers. Third, Trump is using tariffs to drive American foreign policy and extra-territoriality. Recent examples include demanding Brazil halt prosecution of former president Jair Bolsonaro, Canada ditch its Digital Services Tax, and NATO countries raise defence spending to five per cent of GDP. Finally, Trump is employing his own unpredictability to weaponize uncertainty and shift investment towards the U.S. Business plans that depend on exporting to the U.S. are now much more risky — which is very bad news for this country's growth prospects. After 36 mutually beneficial years, free trade with the United States is now dead. Managed trade, with U.S. tariffs and quotas, is the new reality. And the threat will not end with a short-term deal. We had a deal with Trump — CUSMA — and though he's honouring it for the time being, no one should expect it will last beyond next year's renegotiation. So, what should we do? First, we should not overpay for the new 'managed trade' regime with the U.S. And we should retaliate by restricting government procurement, including defence, to like-minded countries that respect trade agreements with us. Provincial and territorial governments should eliminate their barriers to internal trade and reconsider their own procurement regimes. Corporate Canada needs to step up as well and seek out competitive Canadian suppliers. Second, we need to diversify our trade to like-minded trade partners, particularly the EU, Japan, the U.K. and South Korea. Urgency and practicality are key here, not comprehensive trade agreements that take years to negotiate, so sector-specific agreements should be the focus. We should also prioritize shifting our exports that are of great value to the U.S., such as oil, gas and potash, to new markets in Asia and Europe. Third, we should learn from the Americans' panic over Chinese retaliatory embargoes of rare earths and rapidly build our capacity to mine and process these critical resources of the future, both to diversify our trade and to give ourselves more leverage with the Americans in future trade troubles, which are inevitable. Bill C-5 is a good start, but we have to get diggers in the ground, fast. Finally, we should work with European and Asian allies to create a new group of countries committed to freer, fairer and enforceable trade rules. Doing so could revitalize national banking centres at the expense of New York, eventually leading to less dominance of the American dollar and banking system in international trade. Given today's attacks on free trade by America and China, Prime Minister Mark Carney should promote a new 'FT8' focused on preserving trade liberalization: the current G7, minus the U.S., but plus South Korea and Australia, to begin with. Philip Cross: Does threatening to fire the head of a central bank also threaten its independence? Jack Mintz: Canadian exporters are facing a triple-whammy Canada has a skilled workforce, strong post-secondary institutions, entrepreneurial innovators, a strong and stable financial system, energy and natural resources in abundance, a central bank whose independence is not under daily political threat, and much lower relative deficits and debt than the Americans. In short, we have everything we need to compete economically — provided we are willing to pivot and change. Passing Bill C-5 demonstrated willingness to work in the national interest in times of crisis. Let's build on that with urgency and determination, rally our like-minded allies, and help guide the world through this dark passage for liberal trade. Kevin Lynch was Clerk of the Privy Council and vice-chair of BMO Financial Group. Paul Deegan, a former executive at BMO and CN, is CEO of Deegan Public Strategies.
