US accepts luxury jet from Qatar for use as Air Force One for Trump
By Phil Stewart and David Shepardson
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -The United States has accepted a 747 jetliner as a gift from Qatar and the Air Force has been asked to find a way to rapidly upgrade it for use as a new Air Force One, the Pentagon said on Wednesday.
Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth accepted the $400 million Boeing-made jet for use as U.S. President Donald Trump's official plane, the Pentagon said.
Pentagon spokesperson Sean Parnell said the Defense Department "will work to ensure proper security measures and functional-mission requirements are considered."
Legal experts have questioned the scope of laws relating to gifts from foreign governments that aim to thwart corruption and improper influence. Democrats have also sought to block the handover.
Qatar has dismissed concerns about the aircraft deal. Trump has also shrugged off ethical concerns, saying it would be "stupid" not to accept the jet.
Retrofitting the luxury plane offered by Qatar's royal family will require significant security upgrades, communications improvements to prevent spies from listening in and the ability to fend off incoming missiles, experts say. That could cost hundreds of millions of dollars.
The precise costs were not known, but could be significant given the cost for Boeing's current effort to build two new Air Force One planes is over $5 billion.
The Air Force One program has faced chronic delays over the last decade, with the delivery of two new 747-8s slated for 2027, three years behind the previous schedule.
Boeing in 2018 received a $3.9 billion contract to build the two planes for use as Air Force One, thought costs have since risen. Boeing has also posted $2.4 billion in charges from the project.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
9 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump suggests terminating Musk's US government contracts, subsidies
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -U.S. President Donald Trump suggested on Thursday that he may terminate U.S. government contracts and subsidies given to Elon Musk's companies, as the public feud between the two men escalates over a tax and spending bill. "The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts," Trump said in a Truth Social post. 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
USA Today
11 minutes ago
- USA Today
Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill
Trump and Musk's bromance ends after personal attacks over criticism of tax bill 'Elon and I had a great relationship,' President Trump told reporters in the Oval Office on June 5. 'I don't know if we will anymore.' Show Caption Hide Caption 'Kill the bill': Musk urges lawmakers to stop Trump's tax cut bill Elon Musk blasted President Trump's new tax bill as a 'disgusting abomination,' urging millions of followers to lobby lawmakers to 'kill the bill.' WASHINGTON – So much for the overnight White House stays, the rides on Air Force One and the glowing mutual praise. An all-out feud erupted between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk, ending their onetime alliance after Trump hit back at the mounting criticism the world's richest man has leveled against the president's signature tax and policy bill. Trump said on June 5 he was "very disappointed" with Musk and signaled his close relationship with the former top White House adviser was over as he publicly addressed Musk's efforts to kill his so-called "big, beautiful bill." "Elon and I had a great relationship," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "I don't know if we will anymore." Musk quickly fired back, saying Trump wouldn't have won a second term were it not for the quarter of a million dollars in campaign cash he pumped into his 2024 campaign. "Without me, Trump would have lost the election, Dems would control the House and the Republicans would be 51-49 in the Senate," Musk said in a post on X, the social media company he owns. "Such gratitude." Trump's remarks came in response to a question from a reporter as he sat next to German Chancellor Friedrich Merz for a bilateral meeting. "I'm very disappointed with Elon. I helped Elon a lot," Trump said during a lengthy answer. For days, Trump had remained silent as Musk called Trump's reconciliation bill "a disgusting abomination" and later urged his social media followers to lobby their representatives to "kill the bill." Musk has objected to the deficit implications of the legislation ‒ fiscal concerns that the White House rejects. The bill, which cleared the House last month with only Republican support, looks to cement Trump's domestic agenda by extending Trump's 2017 tax cuts, implementing new tax breaks for tipped wages and overtime, overhauling Medicaid and food stamps, beefing up border security and significantly increasing military spending. Trump wants Senate approval by July 4. Trump said he'd "always liked Elon" and noted Musk's criticism hadn't been directed at him but rather the bill. "I'd rather have him criticize me than the bill, because the bill is incredible," Trump said. Trump later accused Musk of opposing the legislation because it would end a $7,500 consumer tax credit for buyers of electric vehicles, a policy of former President Joe Biden that has benefited electric car companies like Musk's Tesla. "I'm vey disappointed because Elon knew the inner workings of this bill better than anybody sitting here," Trump said. "He had no problem with it. All of a sudden, he had a problem, and he only developed the problem when he found out that we're going to cut the EV mandate." 'Whatever,' Musk tells Trump More: Trump overpowers Musk's attacks on mega tax bill with blizzard of orders Musk, CEO of Tesla and SpaceX, was quick to respond. "Whatever," he said on X. "Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill." Musk added: "In the entire history of civilization, there has never been legislation that both big and beautiful. Everyone knows this!" He also disputed Trump's assertion that Musk was kept abreast of the bill's details. "False," Musk said. "This bill was never shown to me even once and was passed in the dead of night so fast that almost no one in Congress could even read it!" Trump: 'I think he misses the place' Musk left the White House last week after leading the government-slashing Department of Government Efficiency during the first four months of Trump's second term. Although Musk first voiced criticism of Trump's bill before his exit, Trump had seemed to smooth things over when he welcomed him to the Oval Office for a friendly send-off news conference on May 30. Yet the gap between Musk and the White House had started to widen. Musk, before his White House departure, asked for his special government employee status to be extended beyond 130 days to allow him to continue to lead DOGE, but the White House declined, a source told USA TODAY. Last weekend, Musk expressed disappointment after Trump withdrew his nominee for administrator of NASA, Jared Isaacman, a billionaire commercial astronaut with close ties to Musk. Then came Musk's attacks on Trump's legislation, jeopardizing the fate of legislation that carries out Trump's domestic agenda. Musk's criticism has given Republican senators the courage to voice their own fiscal concerns with the bill's price tag. "I'll be honest," Trump said of Musk. "I think he misses the place. I think he got out there, and, all of a sudden, he wasn't in this beautiful Oval Office." Reach Joey Garrison on X @joeygarrison. (This story has been updated to add new information.)
Yahoo
14 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Why Paramount's efforts to settle Trump's lawsuit has drawn mounting political heat
Paramount Global's efforts to appease President Trump could carry a steep price, and not just financially. As Paramount executives struggle to win government approval for its planned sale, the legal risks and political headaches are spreading — from Washington to Sacramento. Three U.S. senators have warned Paramount's controlling shareholder Shari Redstone and other decision-makers that paying Trump to drop his $20-billion lawsuit over an October "60 Minutes" interview with former Vice President Kamala Harris could be considered a bribe. Scrutiny widened late last week when two California Democrats proposed a state Senate hearing to probe details of the drama that has roiled the media company for months. The senators invited two former CBS News executives — who both left, in large part, because of the controversy — to testify before a joint committee hearing in Sacramento to help lawmakers examine problems with a possible Trump settlement. "I haven't seen a president act in this brazen of a manner," state Sen. Josh Becker (D-Menlo Park) said in an interview. "We're concerned about a possible chilling effect any settlement might have on investigative and political journalism. It would also send a message that politically motivated lawsuits can succeed, especially when paired with regulatory threats." Settling the Trump lawsuit is widely seen as a prerequisite for regulators to finally clear Paramount's $8-billion sale to Skydance Media, which Redstone has been desperately counting on to save her family's fortunes. Trump contends CBS edited the "60 Minutes" interview to enhance Harris' appeal in the 2024 presidential election, which she lost. He reportedly rebuffed Paramount's recent $15-million offer to settle his lawsuit, which 1st Amendment experts have dismissed as frivolous. "This is a really important case," said Scott L. Cummings, a legal ethics professor at UCLA's School of Law. "Legislators are starting to raise alarms." Read more: Trump, '60 Minutes' and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain But whether federal or state politicians could foil a Trump settlement is murky. Experts caution, for example, that it may be difficult, if a settlement is reached, to prove that Paramount's leaders paid a bribe. Congress has grappled with such distinctions before, Cummings said. The U.S. Senate acquitted Trump in February 2020 after the House voted to impeach him for allegedly holding up nearly $400 million in security aid to pressure Ukraine to investigate former President Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Major universities and law firms offered significant concessions to the administration this year to try to carve out breathing room. "We would have to have a lot more facts," Cummings said. "Bribery requires a quid pro quo ... and [Trump and his lieutenants] are always very careful not to explicitly couple the two things together. But, clearly, they are related, right? This is the challenge, legally speaking." Even if a Paramount payoff could be proved to be a bribe, it's unclear who would prosecute such a case. No one expects the Trump-controlled FBI or others within the U.S. Department of Justice to investigate allegations of bribery. Trump also has a grip on congressional Republicans and the Federal Communications Commission is run by a Trump appointee, Brendan Carr, who in one of his first acts as chairman, opened a public inquiry into whether the "60 Minutes" edits rose to the level of news distortion. It may fall to state prosecutors to dig into the issue, Cummings said. That hasn't stopped nationally prominent progressive lawmakers from sounding alarms. U.S. Sens. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) and Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) have demanded Paramount provide information about the company's deliberations or concessions to facilitate a deal with Trump, including whether newscasts were toned down. "It is illegal to corruptly give anything of value to public officials to influence an official act," the lawmakers wrote in their May 19 letter to Redstone. "If Paramount officials make these concessions ... to influence President Trump ... they may be breaking the law." Redstone and Paramount failed to respond to the senators' questions by this week's deadline, according to Warren's office. Paramount and a Redstone spokesperson declined to comment. Lawmakers often express interest in big media takeovers, and Skydance's proposed purchase of an original Hollywood movie studio and pioneering broadcaster CBS could be an industry game changer. But this time, interest is less focused on vetting the Ellison family or the deal's particulars and more about determining whether Trump inappropriately wields his power. Trump has demanded Paramount pay "a lot" of money to settle his lawsuit. The president also has called for CBS to lose its station licenses, which are governed by the FCC. For more than a month, attorneys for Paramount and Trump have participated in mediation sessions without resolution. Paramount offered $15 million but Trump said no, according to the Wall Street Journal. Instead, the president reportedly demanded at least $25 million in cash, plus an additional $25 million in free commercials to pump his favorite causes. He also wants an apology. The latter is a red line for CBS News executives who say they have done nothing wrong, according to insiders who were not authorized to discuss the sensitive deliberations. Paramount's leaders have clashed over settlement efforts, according to the sources. The two California state senators — Becker and Thomas J. Umberg (D-Santa Ana) — hope such fractures provide an opening. Late last week, the pair invited former CBS News and Stations President Wendy McMahon and former "60 Minutes" executive producer Bill Owens to testify at a yet-unscheduled oversight hearing in Sacramento. McMahon exited CBS last month under pressure for her management decisions, including resistance to the Trump settlement, sources said. Owens resigned in April, citing a loss of editorial independence. "You are being approached as friendly witnesses who may help our committees assess whether improper influence is being exerted in ways that threaten public trust and competition in the media sector," Becker and Umberg wrote to the former executives. Becker is chairman of the Senate Energy, Utilities & Communications Committee; Umberg heads the Senate Judiciary Committee. California has an interest, in part, because Paramount operates in the state, including a large presence in Los Angeles, Becker told The Times. Read more: Trump, '60 Minutes' and corruption allegations put Paramount on edge with sale less certain The controversy over the edits began in October after CBS aired different parts of Harris' response to a question during a "60 Minutes" interview a month before the election. Producers of the public affairs show "Face the Nation" used a clip of Harris giving a convoluted response. The following day, "60 Minutes" aired the most forceful part of her answer, prompting conservatives to cry foul. Trump filed his federal lawsuit in Texas days before the election, alleging CBS had deceptively edited the Harris interview to boost her election chances, an allegation CBS denies. After returning to the White House, Trump doubled the damages he was seeking to $20 billion. His team claims he suffered "mental anguish" as a result of the interview. Read more: '60 Minutes,' the Associated Press, an Iowa newspaper: Trump's attacks on the media reach new heights CBS has asked the Texas judge, a Trump appointee, to dismiss the lawsuit, saying the edits were routine. Since then, the FCC's review of Paramount's Skydance deal has become bogged down. Paramount needs Carr's approval to transfer CBS television station licenses to the Ellison family. Paramount has said it is treating the proposed settlement and FCC review on the Skydance merger as separate matters. Experts doubt Trump sees such a distinction. Trump and his team "essentially are using government processes to set up negotiations that end up benefiting Trump personally in ways that raise corruption concerns," Cummings said. Paramount's decision could open the company to shareholder complaints. The reason Trump's CBS "60 Minutes" lawsuit has become such a lightning rod is "because the lawsuit is so ridiculously frivolous," said Seth Stern, advocacy director for the Freedom of the Press Foundation, which owns Paramount shares and has vowed a lawsuit if the company capitulates. "This is so transparently an abuse of power — a shakedown," Stern said. Read more: Paramount adds three new board members amid Trump troubles and FCC review Media analyst Richard Greenfield of LightShed Partners suggested that Trump's goal may be about more than his reported demand of nearly $50 million. "The far bigger question is whether there is any number that Trump would want to settle the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit," Greenfield wrote in a blog post this week. "If Trump's goal is to weaken the press and cause persistent fear of lawsuits that could negatively impact business combinations, keeping the CBS/60 Minutes lawsuit ongoing could be in the President's best interests." UCLA's Cummings sees another deleterious outcome. A settlement could "legitimize the narrative that Trump puts out that there's some sort of corruption within these media entities," Cummings said. "He could point to a settlement and say: 'I told you they did something wrong, and they now agreed because they paid me this amount of money.' " "Even though they would be paying to get this deal through," Cummings said. Sign up for our Wide Shot newsletter to get the latest entertainment business news, analysis and insights. This story originally appeared in Los Angeles Times.
