Trump rips into ABC for questioning Qatar's $400M private plane gift
By
Published: Updated:
President Donald Trump defended accepting a gift of a luxury 747-8 airplane from Qatar on Monday, tearing into an ABC News reporter for questioning his decision. ABC senior political correspondent Rachel Scott questioned Trump about why he was accepting the gift. 'What do you say to people who view that luxury jet as a personal gift to you? Why not leave it behind?' Scott asked.
'You're ABC fake news, right?' Trump replied to Scott, adding that she should be 'embarrassed' for asking the question. 'They're giving us a free jet, I could say no, no, no, don't give us, I want to pay you a billion or $400 million or whatever it is, or I could say, 'Thank you very much,'' he added. The 747-8 is considered fuel efficient and quiet but it is most notable for it's luxurious interior, designed by famed French design firm Alberto Pinto Cabinet.
The plane boasts ornate suites, staterooms, lounges and dining rooms. Nearly every room on board has plush carpeting, leather couches and golden furnishings. Critics of the gift, including some from his MAGA supporters, questioned why the president was accepting the gift, warning that it looked corrupt and faulted the president for cozying up to Qatar. Trump compared the situation to a motto of the famous golfer Sam Snead.
'He had a motto, when they give you a putt, you say, 'Thank you very much,' you pick up your ball and you walk to the next hole,' he said. When Scott asked why as a businessman, Trump was accepting a multi-million dollar gift as president, he grew defensive. 'It's not a gift to me, its a gift to the Department of Defense, and you should know better because you've been embarrassed enough and so has your network, you're network is a disaster, ABC is a disaster,' he concluded.
Trump and Scott have a history of contention, especially after she grilled him at the National Association of Black Journalists forum during the 2024 election. During that August forum, Scott began by detailing Trump's history of statements on issues of race, including comments he made about President Barack Obama, congresswomen of color, black district attorneys and noted he had dinner with a white supremacist. 'My question, sir, now that you are asking black supporters to vote for you, why should black voters trust you after you have used language like that?' she asked.
At the time, Trump responded by describing ABC News 'a fake news network, a terrible network' and called her question 'disgraceful' as he came to the forum 'in good spirit.' 'I think it's a very rude introduction. I don't know exactly why you would do something like that,' he said. The president further defended his acceptance of the luxury jet, repeating that Qatar had not asked for anything in exchange of the gift.
Trump indicated he was 'disappointed' that Boeing was taking so long to produce a new Air Force One , recalling the current plane was 40 years old. 'It's not even the same ballgame, you look at some of the Arab countries, and the planes they have parked alongside the United States of America plane it's like a different planet,' he said. Trump noted that Qatar purchased the airplane from Boeing and that only a 'stupid' person would turn down the gift.
'If we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department to use during a couple of years while they are building the new ones, I think that is a very nice gesture,' he said. He defended the gift as a 'gesture of good faith' from Qatar, recalling all the United States had done for the country. Keeping the existing Air Force One plans in operation, he claimed, was costing the United States a great deal of money.
'The maintenance we spend on those planes to keep them tippy-top is astronomical, you wouldn't even believe it,' he said. Trump said he would not use the plane after leaving office, but would decommission it and put it in his presidential library, similar to Ronald Reagan's plane and museum.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mirror
an hour ago
- Daily Mirror
LA on lockdown as Donald Trump calls protesters 'animals' in fresh unhinged rant
Donald Trump and California Governor Gavin Newsom have again entered a slanging match as protests continued in Los Angeles, part of which is now subject to a no-go zone Part of Los Angeles has been put into lockdown following anarchic riots over the past week, sparked as a result of Donald Trump's gung-ho immigration policy. The US President branded protesters "animals" and "a foreign enemy" before Los Angeles mayor Karen Bass caved in and declared a local emergency. Demonstrators set fire to cars, looted buildings and attacked officers with rocks, fireworks and cement bricks in harrowing scenes of destruction in recent days. It means Downtown, Los Angeles, will be a no-go zone until 6am Wednesday (2pm UK time). The same curfew is likely to be repeated for several nights. Ms Bass warned: "If you do not live or work in Downtown LA avoid the area. Law enforcement will arrest individuals who break the curfew, and you will be prosecuted... Some of the imagery of the protests and the violence gives the appearance as though this is a city wide crisis and is not." Her move came after Mr Trump, in his most aggressive language yet regarding the protests, called demonstrators "a foreign enemy". Speaking to reporters in Fort Bragg, California, the Republican President said: "We will not allow an American city to be invaded and conquered by a foreign enemy. That's what they are." Mr Trump received plenty of cheers from the crowd at the event, which was supposed to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the US Army. READ MORE: Donald Trump brands Greta Thunberg a 'young, angry person' in blistering attack But California Governor Gavin Newsom hit back at the world leader. After the lockdown was imposed, effectively banning daytime protests in Downtown, Gov Newsom blamed the federal government for the ongoing crisis. He said: "Authoritarian regimes begin by targeting people who are least able to defend themselves, but they do not stop there. This is a president who in just over 140 days, has fired government watchdogs that could hold him accountable, accountable for corruption and fraud. He's declared a war, a war on culture, on history, on science, on knowledge itself. Databases, quite literally, are vanishing." Gov Newsom claimed that "when Donald Trump sought blanket authority to commandeer the National Guard. He made that order apply to every state in this nation. "This is about all of us. This is about you. California may be first, but it clearly will not end here. Other states are next. Democracy is next. Democracy is under assault before our eyes, this moment we have feared has arrived... What Donald Trump wants most is your fealty, your silence, to be complicit in this moment. Do not give in to him." Mr Trump gave orders to send 700 Marines and 4,100 National Guard troops in to take over policing efforts and assist the Los Angeles Police Department amid the tensions. At least 23 businesses have been looted during the ongoing violence.
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Los Angeles, Donald Trump and the moronic inferno
Photo by David Swanson/Reuters Just as Vladimir Putin hungers to occupy Ukraine, it seems that Donald Trump hungers to occupy America. At time of writing, the president has ordered 4,000 members of the National Guard along with 700 US marines to California to put down protests there against the random arrest of (possibly) undocumented immigrants. Cars ablaze, charging phalanxes of soldiers, protesters' bloody faces: Trump's actions seem likely to provoke the demonstrators to levels of violence not seen since the Black Lives Matter riots of 2020. Perhaps that is the intention. The effect is ominous. Trump's overruling of a state governor to deploy these troops is the first such presidential action since Lyndon Johnson sent federal soldiers into Alabama in 1965, and that was to protect civil rights protesters, not attack them. It appears no precedent, or lack of one, can constrain America's leader. Trump simply has nothing to lose from whatever he does. Not from the violence he is unleashing in California, and certainly not from his obsessively covered and commented-upon falling out with Elon Musk, Trump's adviser and patron until recently. Musk, the world's wealthiest man, runs no real risk, either. Worth nearly $400bn dollars, Musk might, if Trump cancels his federal contracts, lose some mere billions. In fact he lost far more after the value of his companies sank thanks to his alliance with Trump. This hasn't stopped the American media from milking their row for all the page views it is worth. The brouhaha is wearying. More consequential, especially in the light of Trump's actions in LA, is a lesser-noticed split between Trump and another former ally: Miles Taylor, the former homeland security official from Trump's first administration. In an anonymous 2018 op-ed in the New York Times, then in a book published anonymously, he questioned Trump's fitness to hold office (Taylor revealed his identity in 2020). In April, Trump publicly suggested that Taylor had committed treason, a crime punishable by death. Trump has directed the Justice Department to investigate Taylor, who, with his family, has been in hiding since 2020. Now the family are trying to raise money for a legal defence. No American president has ever had an American investigated for committing treason for merely criticising the government, let alone publicly slandered them as a traitor. The New York Times glancingly mentioned Trump's accusation of espionage against Taylor in just one article, which covered several subjects of the president's vindictive rage. Yet at one point, the paper had no fewer than ten stories about the spat between Trump and Musk at the top of its homepage. The usually more sober, though Trump-whispering, Wall Street Journal had five up top. Meanwhile Gaza and Ukraine burn, China and Russia gloat, Europeans move so far away from America that it will take another Columbus to rediscover the place, and Trump's wanton slaughter of American institutions and values rolls forward. The world's most powerful man breaking with the world's richest man is newsworthy. But the idea – as pundits have said, again and again – that in the light of the rift American politics will change profoundly is absurd. Trump's persecution of one of his critics as a traitor is what will change American politics profoundly. Musk, who is unpopular, lacks the stature to stand the political order on its head. His threat to form a third party is as toothless as it is standard for an embittered rival to make. For all his wealth, he could not even get a Trump-supported judge elected in Wisconsin in April. And rather than the two men emerging as losers from their quarrel, they both come out smelling like roses. Trump was glad to have the chainsaw-wielding Musk serve as his fall-guy for the unpopular gutting of vital American agencies. Musk was happy to have the opportunity to move bureaucrats who were attempting to regulate his businesses out of the way. The limited and short-lived repercussions of Musk's antagonism with Trump are nothing compared to the ongoing consequences of their collaboration. As for the much-touted break between Maga and tech, Trump recently signed a mammoth contract with Palantir, the data analysis and technology company co-founded by Peter Thiel. This is not to say that the Trump-Musk rift does not offer an illumination. At its heart, it is an encounter between two present-day American archetypes: Musk, a digitally formed persona who seems lacking in emotional intelligence; and Trump, an old-fashioned analogue figure who makes up for what he lacks in knowledge and intellect with his preternatural ability to grasp people and what they fundamentally want. Consider his actions in Los Angeles: a level of policing brutality that plays up to the 'law and order' fever dreams of parts of the American public. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe After all, it is Trump's emotional canniness that has allowed him for decades to play the media like a farmed salmon. As the all-consuming uproar over his break with Musk showed, his strongest talent is to create smoke and mirrors in order to obscure the reality of his actions. His sweet spot is to rivet attention. The media's sweet spot is also to rivet attention. This is what lends such a fatal momentum to every spectacle Trump creates. The more the media conscientiously portrays Trump's cruelty in LA, the more his followers thrill to his power. It is Greek tragedy: every motion of American freedom now has the effect of turning freedom in America in on itself. [See also: Trump's nuclear test] Related
New Statesman
an hour ago
- New Statesman
Laughing at the populist right is not a political strategy
Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT/AFP via Getty Images Across north London, in the citadels of the liberal elite, it has been hard to hear yourself think. The roars, whoops and whistles of merry laughter; the stamping of feet on floorboards; the wheezing, the rasping coughs and the slapping of thighs… yes, Donald and Elon, not to mention Nigel and Zia, have brought a lot of innocent cheer. This is not simply about great egos falling out: a voyeuristic thrill as the world's most powerful man and the world's richest man traded insults. It also poses a more important question about whether the revolutionary surge by the populist right, which began in America, is starting to collapse, weighed down by contradictions. After all, in taking aim at President Trump's 'big beautiful bill' in the cause of fiscal sanity, Musk put his finger on the glaring ideological fissure inside today's new right – the gap between traditional fiscal conservatives who believe growth comes from low taxes balanced by tightly controlled government spending; and the performative hucksters, happy to offer whatever the voter base wants, affordable or not. I'm well aware that this flatters Elon Musk, who has been happy to have his company suck greedily at the teat of federal spending, and who only seems to have seen the light when he realised how much the withdrawal of electric vehicle subsidies in the bill would have hit Tesla. Further, Musk's threats to cancel the Dragon rocket programme on which the International Space Station depends – threats he then reversed – and his accusation about Trump's involvement with paedophile Jeffrey Epstein – an accusation he then deleted – suggests a man on the edge. Some have pointed to Musk's disclosures about his ketamine use. Trump simply taunted him by saying he is 'losing his mind'. Either way, Musk doesn't look or sound much like a traditional Republican. The tech-titan lobby he speaks for is desperate for lavish US government support and subsidy – and, indeed, in its fight with Chinese rivals, has a strong case for long-term federal backing. If Musk is genuinely gone for good from Trumpland, and it's hard to see a way back, Jeff Bezos and Sam Altman will have their thumbs competing for the West Wing doorbell soon. Meanwhile, Musk's Doge, strongly backed in Silicon Valley, so far seems like a damp squib – the tree has defeated the chainsaw. But let's try to put all that to one side. There is still a fundamental difference between the pork-barrel, 'spend big, promise bigger' instincts of Trump himself, using borrowed money to fling tax cuts to his hugely rich friends, and the genuine anxiety of Elon Musk about a swollen federal budget and debt. Subscribe to The New Statesman today from only £8.99 per month Subscribe Does this divide expose the very nature of the Maga movement? It's powered by poorer, excluded Americans who may have deep hatred of 'woke' culture, but who are interested in their own economic position – blue-collar Americans who want factories brought back home, but also want to keep their benefits, and have a deep suspicion of the political elite. The Trump bill, slashing taxes for the richest while cutting Medicare and other programmes for the poorest, shows whose side he is on; if Musk's campaign to stop the bill by encouraging a platoon of rebel Republicans to block it in the Senate were to succeed, he would be doing a favour not just to the increasingly worried bond markets but also to the Maga base. Let's turn nearer to home, where the gone, gone-back-again Zia Yusuf, the pinging Reform UK chairman who had floated a British version of Doge, offers a parallel. Reform faces two substantial policy challenges. One is 'respectability' – how far to go in an anti-migrant, race-inflected direction in order to energise its coalition? The second is economic. Like Maga, Reform has a blue-collar, working-class base and is offering not just huge tax cuts of nearly £90bn a year but also spending increases of £50bn a year on things those voters want more of, such as the NHS. It says it can pay for this with cuts of £150bn a year. The Institute for Fiscal Studies says the numbers don't add up: 'Spending reductions would save less than stated, and the tax cuts would cost more than stated, by a margin of tens of billions of pounds per year.' This suggests, as with the Trump bill, that poorer Farage supporters would find their benefits under threat, while middle-class ones wouldn't get the tax cuts they wanted. Unsurprisingly, and after seeing off Reform in the Hamilton Scottish parliamentary by-election, Keir Starmer has jumped on this, comparing the Farage package to Liz Truss and accusing him of making the same bet – 'that you can spend tens of billions on tax cuts without a proper way of paying for it'. And so we come to this week and the Spending Review. Fundamentally, the fight ahead is about credibility and timing. Populists insist there are quick, almost painless short-term fixes to the long problem of low productivity and growth. They suggest you can slash taxes and simultaneously improve working-class living standards. Reeves' version of social democracy has an answer to this – the big investments announced this week in everything from nuclear power to transport connections. Invest, long-term and patiently, and the growth will return. It's not a quick fix. Voters must wait. Andy Haldane, the Bank of England's former chief economist, urges Labour to have an understandable 'people strategy' and more power for the regions and nations to give voters hope while the investment arrives. Because we are not a patient lot, and that is what Reform preys on. Haldane told the Guardian: 'Nigel Farage is as close to what the country has to a tribune for the working classes. I don't think there's any politician that comes even remotely close to speaking to, and for, blue-collar, working-class Britain. I think that is just a statement of fact…' Well, if so, isn't it an extraordinary one? Farage, an ex-City trader from the suburban south, is more of a tribune than Rayner, Phillipson, Streeting or Reed, who grew up in council housing and on benefits? Able to speak to working people in a way that the government, 92 per cent of whose ministers attended comprehensive schools, can't? This points to a familiar but catastrophic problem – the strange inability of this Labour government to communicate its cause vividly. By investing wisely, it can bring growth and therefore better times, but meanwhile it needs the fire of a Kinnock, the moral weight of a Brown, the birds-from-trees persuasiveness of a Blair. Yet too often, all we hear are wooden tongues. The lessons of the past fortnight are twofold. First, the right-wing populist insurgency, both in America and here, is fragile, not omnipotent. As the Musk episode reminds us, there is a difference between radical protest and traditional conservative thinking, particularly on the role of the state. Any coalition big enough to overwhelm social democracy can come apart quickly when personalities go to war. Although they sometimes run in parallel, American politics and British politics, Brobdingnag and Lilliput, remain different in structure, electoral make-up and rhythm. One must be cautious about those equal signs: the quick peace deal between Yusuf and Farage showed a sense lacking in Washington. Still, the mocking liberal laughter wasn't all ridiculous. But the second lesson is that, even with a plausible growth strategy, social democracy needs brilliant storytellers to keep a tired and sceptical electorate onside. This is a long fight. Starmer and Reeves are in it for years to come. But they have to become far better communicators. Nigel Farage, after all, is a man used to having the last, loud laugh. [See more: Reform needs Zia Yusuf] Related
