Latest news with #ForeignEmolumentsClause
USA Today
22-05-2025
- Business
- USA Today
Uncharted territory: US accepts 'gift' of $400 million Qatari plane
Uncharted territory: US accepts 'gift' of $400 million Qatari plane | The Excerpt On a special episode (first released on May 22, 2025) of The Excerpt podcast: In 2018, the U.S. Air Force awarded a $3.9 billion contract to Boeing for two new Air Force One planes. For a variety of reasons, including delays tied to the need for workers with proper security clearances, Boeing may or may not be able to complete the order before the end of President Donald Trump's second term. Meanwhile, the Qatari Prime Minister offered to gift the president a luxury 747 jet valued at $400 million. And the Department of Defense has just accepted it. There are questions about whether the Qatari plane can even be brought up to Air Force One's safety and security standards before Trump leaves office. But the bigger question may be whether it was lawful for the president to accept it. Richard Briffault, Professor of Legislation at Columbia Law School, joins us on The Excerpt to share his insights. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending an email to podcasts@ Hit play on the player below to hear the podcast and follow along with the transcript beneath it. This transcript was automatically generated, and then edited for clarity in its current form. There may be some differences between the audio and the text. Podcasts: True crime, in-depth interviews and more USA TODAY podcasts right here Dana Taylor: Hello, and welcome to The Excerpt. I'm Dana Taylor. Today is Wednesday, May 22nd, 2025, and this is a special episode of The Excerpt. In 2018, the U.S. Air Force awarded a $3.9 billion contract to Boeing for two new Air Force One planes for a variety of reasons, including delays tied to the need for workers with proper security clearances. Boeing may or may not be able to complete the order before the end of President Donald Trump's second term. Meanwhile, the Qatari Prime Minister has offered to gift the President a luxury 747 jet valued at $400 million, and the Department of Defense has just accepted it. There are questions about whether the Qatari plane can even be brought up to Air Force One's safety and security standards before Trump leaves office, but the bigger question may be whether it's lawful for the president to accept it. Here to share his insights on that, I'm now joined by Richard Briffault, Professor of Legislation at Columbia Law School. Thanks for joining me, Richard. Richard Briffault: My pleasure. Happy to be here. Dana Taylor: There are two emoluments clauses, the Foreign Emoluments Clause and the Domestic Emoluments Clause. Let's start with the Foreign Clause. What is its purpose and who does it apply to? Richard Briffault: The Foreign Emoluments Clause is basically designed to prevent federal officials from receiving gifts from foreign governments, from foreign heads of state. Many people think it relates to a specific incident during the period and time of the revolution of the time of the writing of the Constitution when Benjamin Franklin, who was then the ambassador to France, received an ornate jeweled box as a gift from the King of France. And people in America were suspicious that somehow this would've made him too pro-French, and so that at least is the story behind the Emoluments Clause. It applies to anybody, and this is the phrase in the Constitution, "Who holds an office of profit or trust under the United States." That clearly picks up all federal appointees, all federal officials. There is some debate as to whether it actually applies to the president technically, but the Office of Legal Counsel, which is the office in the Justice Department that advises presidents, has for a very long time assumed that it does. Uncharted territory: US accepts 'gift' of $400 million Qatari plane The Constitution's emoluments clause is clear, accepting the plane as a gift is illegal. We're way past that. Dana Taylor: And what about the Domestic Emoluments Clause? What is its purpose? Richard Briffault: Again, it applies to gifts from the states, and it's designed to prevent the president from being, or any federal official I should say, from being biased in favor of one of the states. If a state were to give a fancy gift to the president or to a federal official, they might be prejudiced or biased. There was an interpretation of that one involving when President Reagan became president, he had been Governor of California. Was there a problem in his receiving his pension from California? Because that was a gift from the... And then the office said, "No, there isn't, because he had of course earned that while he was governor." But that showed that that was seen as clearly applying to the president. Dana Taylor: The question many, including some of the president's supporters, have been asking is can a sitting president accept gifts from a foreign government and does the size of the gift matter? Richard Briffault: The size shouldn't matter. Of course the bigger the gift, the bigger the problem. I think the legal problem would begin even with a small gift. I mean, I think the key problem here is that whether it's a gift to the president as opposed to a gift to the United States. I mean, presidents have been receiving ceremonial gifts for years, an elephant here, a panda there, a jeweled sword somewhere else, and that usually just goes into the National Archives, or I guess the animals go to the zoo. But it's always been a long tradition of honorary gifts. But something like this, the scale of it is enormous, and of course it would be for the personal use of the president. Prior presidents were not using those jeweled swords or snuffboxes. Another thing that's most troubling is the idea that at the end of his term it wouldn't remain with the United States, but it would go to Trump's foundation. I think it might be a different story if this was literally a gift to the United States and the plane remained part of the United States government. Dana Taylor: Where are we legally and ethically with regards to the DOD accepting this gift on behalf of the president? Richard Briffault: Much will turn on the exact terms of the arrangement, but if, as I understand it from news accounts, the United States is accepting it during Trump's term but then it goes to Trump when he leaves office or it goes to the Trump Foundation, then basically the problem is it's essentially a gift to him. That triggers the Emoluments Clause and it would violate the Constitution unless Congress votes to accept it. That's the problem is that the United States may be taking possession so that of course the Defense Department can go through the plane and make sure that it's secure for national security purposes. But if at the end of Trump's term it goes with Trump rather than staying with the United States, then it's essentially a gift to him, and that means that we have all of the problems with the Emoluments Clause that we've all been talking about ever since this issue arose when Qatar made the offer. Dana Taylor: Are there other recent examples of a sitting president accepting a large gift from a foreign government? Richard Briffault: Not in a personal capacity. And I'm sure there have been gifts, and again, there are all sorts of ceremonial gifts that come, and these usually just go into the National Archives. I'm sure there have been gifts, but nothing like this. Dana Taylor: Whether or not the acceptance of the 747 jet is a good idea is a separate issue altogether. The bigger issue I want to get to here is that this is just the latest in a cavalcade of questionable actions by the president, the $1 million per plate fundraiser in April, his $1.5 million per person fundraiser for an unknown purpose earlier this month, a Middle East trip which included private dealmaking by both the president and those in his entourage, his and Melania's meme coins. The list goes on. Are all of these ethical violations? And if so, who will rein the president in? Richard Briffault: Yeah, so that's a great question, and you're right to put this in perspective. In some ways, the plane is relatively minor compared to the president's meme coin, the president's crypto business or the president's family's crypto business, the $TRUMP and the $MELANIA coins. The amounts of money there are potentially huge, and of course they go directly to the president or to the president's family. So you're absolutely right, the plane is very dramatic, but in some sense it's smaller, or as you suggest, it's part of a bigger picture of this president not having any kind of inner guardrails of any reluctance at all. Quite the opposite to use his office, public office for his own personal or private benefit. And in some ways, the essence of ethics, of government ethics is public office is a public trust, you should be using the public office only for public purposes and not for private gain. It's whether this technically violates any laws is a trickier question because relatively few laws apply to the president. Many of them, these were being done by members of the cabinet or members of the regular federal government, yes, be all sorts of legal violations, but the presidency is a unique position. Certainly you wouldn't expect his own Justice Department to enforce them against him, and there's really nobody else who can. So I think we've traditionally relied on presidents' own sense of what's the right thing to do with laws in the background, getting legal advice, and this is a president who doesn't really seem to care about that. As he says, "With respect to the plane, it would be foolish to turn down the gift." But the point is the whole reason we have rules like this is to prevent use of public office for private gain, and also to eliminate the danger that a president or anybody in public office would be biased or influenced to give favors to those people who've been giving favors to him. Not outright bribes, not outright deals, those I'm going to guess don't happen that much, and even in this case, I'm not sure that there's anyone could show that there was a outright bribe or an outright deal. But all these things are designed to make, when people are buying the meme coin or Qatari government giving the jet, they will all, whether it's intended or not, they're likely to have the effect of the president being more favorably disposed to the giver and the buyer, the person who's supporting him financially than otherwise, and that can affect decisions. On crypto, he's in the position to approve laws and to influence the development of laws and the enforcement of laws that deal with the whole industry. So there he's got direct stake. The Qatari jet, he makes foreign policy. He's going to decide what positions we take on things in the Middle East, and obviously they have a huge stake in that. Dana Taylor: As you said, the president's office is part of the public trust. The list of President Trump's business ventures runs the gambit from selling cologne and crypto to building lavish resorts and golf courses across the globe. Is the public trust eroded when a president profits from his privileged position, and what's the impact to America's standing in the world globally? Richard Briffault: I think it hurts us globally. I think until this president, United States really did stand as a symbol or a pillar of democracy, of rule of law, of checks and balances, and even of public integrity. I think Americans helped other countries, particularly emerging democracies, set up their anti-corruption rules and how to deal with that, and basically making the argument that elected officials that are there to serve the public and not themselves, which is not always the case in many countries around the world, and I think United States played an important role in promoting that vision of public officials as serving their people, not themselves. I think this totally undermines our credibility for that. Regardless of whether it's affecting any individual policy decisions of his, he's acting like any other person, any other leader of another country who is using office to enrich himself. Dana Taylor: Richard, thank you so much for being on The Excerpt. Richard Briffault: My pleasure. Thank you for having me. Dana Taylor: Thanks to our senior producers, Shannon Rae Green and Kaely Monahan, for their production assistance. Our executive producer is Laura Beatty. Let us know what you think of this episode by sending a note to podcasts@ Thanks for listening. I'm Dana Taylor. Taylor Wilson will be back tomorrow morning with another episode of The Excerpt.
CNBC
20-05-2025
- Business
- CNBC
Qatari PM denies jumbo jet gift to Trump is bribery
Qatar's prime minister on Tuesday denied accusations that Doha's offer of an estimated-$400 million Boeing 747 jet to U.S. President Donald Trump was an attempt to curry favor with the White House administration. "I call it an exchange between two countries. And basically the relationship that we have between Qatar and the United States is a very institutional relationship," Sheikh Mohammed bin Abdulrahman al-Thani said. "The plane story is a ministry of defense to department of defense transaction, which is basically done in full transparency and very legally, and it's part of the cooperation that we've been always doing together for decades." Trump, who carried out a whirlwind tour of the Middle East stopping in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates last week, has come under fire from opposition politicians at home after Doha proposed the jet gift. Qatar also at the time agreed to order up to 210 American-made Boeing 787 Dreamliner and 777X aircraft powered by GE Aerospace engines, in what the White House has hailed as the "largest-ever" widebody and 787 orders at Boeing — a major U.S. defense contractor. Al-Thani on Tuesday stressed the gesture was a "normal thing that happens between allies" and dismissed allegations that Qatar may be seeking to "buy influence with this administration." "It's a two-ways relationship. It's mutually beneficial for Qatar and for the United States. Nothing [has] been done by us under the table," he noted. "A lot of nations has gifted the U.S. many things. I am not comparing that to the Statue of Liberty, but…" Trump said last week in a Truth Social media post that the prospective gifted plane would "temporarily" replace the 40-year-old Air Force One aircraft that typically serves the U.S. president. According to the Associated Press, he separately said the plane would later join a future presidential library foundation. Boeing is currently producing an Air Force aircraft One, which has been delayed alongside other deliveries amid the company's supplier and parts hurdles Democrats have lambasted the Qatari offer raising broader ethical and security concerns. Under a Foreign Emoluments Clause, the U.S. Constitution says that "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." Several Democrats have submitted a resolution in the House of Representatives calling on Trump to submit all plans for the jumbo jet donation to Congress in compliance with the Foreign Emoluments Clause. "The Constitution charges Congress with ensuring the President does not use the highest office in the land as a get-rich-quick scheme to pocket lavish gifts from foreign Presidents, Dictators, and Emirs. It is high time that Congress do its job," said Rep. Jamie Raskin, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. "This is the definition of corruption," Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Conn., told NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. Trump has defended the "very nice gesture" from Qatar as a contribution for the Defence Department while Boeing builds additional aircraft, rather than as a personal gift. "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 said last week, adding in a separate exchange, "I could be a stupid person and say no, we don't want a free very expensive airplane, but … I thought it was a great gesture."
Yahoo
15-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
House Dems open investigation into Trump's acceptance of $400 million jet from Qatar
FIRST ON FOX: House Democrats are opening an investigation into President Donald Trump and his administration's acceptance of a $400 million private jet from the Qatari government. Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., the ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, led his fellow Democrats on the panel in a letter to Attorney General Pam Bondi and White House counsel David Warrington on Thursday. They're specifically asking Bondi to hand over a reported legal memo she wrote that is meant to assert the legality of Trump accepting the plane on behalf of the U.S. "Any legal memo purporting to make such a claim would obviously fly in the face of the text of the Constitution's Foreign Emoluments Clause, which explicitly prohibits the President from accepting any 'present [or] Emolument... of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State' unless he has 'the Consent of Congress,'" the letter reads. Meet The Trump-picked Lawmakers Giving Speaker Johnson A Full House Gop Conference "Accordingly, we are writing to request that you provide the Committee on the Judiciary with these memos immediately as their analysis and conclusions are apparently the basis for the President's decision to disregard the plain text of the Constitution." Read On The Fox News App Raskin and the other Judiciary Committee Democrats went so far as to accuse Trump or people in his orbit of soliciting a bribe from Qatar. "President Trump's statements expressing displeasure with delays in the delivery of his new Boeing aircraft to serve as Air Force One and the timing of this 'gift' suggest that President Trump or a member of his Administration may have improperly solicited this 'nice gesture' from the Qatari government," the Democrats said, citing Trump's own comments. "The fact that, according to President Trump, the plane would not remain in service to the United States but would rather be donated to his presidential library after his term concludes further raises the possibility that this 'nice gesture' is intended as a bribe to Donald Trump." Multiple outlets reported that Bondi and Warrington drafted a legal memo that said it was "legally permissible" for Trump to accept the plane and then have it transferred to his presidential library when he leaves office. A source familiar with the discussions told Fox News Digital the memo was drafted by the Office of Legal Counsel and signed by Bondi. But Democrats suggested the memo was likely not sufficient grounds for Trump to bypass Congress on the issue, and pointed out Bondi herself had previously lobbied on Qatar's behalf. Brown University In Gop Crosshairs After Student's Doge-like Email Kicks Off Frenzy "The Constitution is clear: Congress — not the Attorney General or the White House Counsel — has the exclusive authority to approve or reject a gift 'of any kind whatever' given to the President by a foreign government," the letter said. "We would also note that, even if the Attorney General had a constitutional role to play here, Attorney General Bondi has a significant and obvious conflict of interest given her prior registration as an official agent of the Qatari government and earned no less than $115,000 per month lobbying on its behalf." When reached for comment on the matter, a source close to Bondi said only that the letter was received by the Department of Justice (DOJ). In addition to looking for the memo itself, the Democratic letter also asked for any communications and other records regarding the Boeing plane's transfer, and discussions of the gift's legal justifications. Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee have little power to compel Trump administration officials to comply, given their status as the minority party in the chamber. But Raskin has been scrutinizing Trump and his inner circle over family foreign ties since the former president's first term. The latest letter comes during Trump's diplomatic visit to the Middle East, where Qatar was one of his stops. Trump has defended his acceptance of the plane on multiple occasions, arguing he would be a "stupid person" to not take it, while bashing Democrats for their criticism. "So the fact that 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, so bothers the Crooked Democrats that they insist we pay, TOP DOLLAR, for the plane. Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!!" Trump wrote on Truth Social this week. Senate Republicans said they knew little when asked by Fox News Digital earlier this week. Meanwhile, Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., skirted the issue during his most recent weekly press conference. "I'm not following all the twists and turns of the charter jet. My understanding is it's not a personal gift for the president of the United States, and other nations give us gifts all the time, but, I'm going to leave it to the administration. They know much more about the details," Johnson told reporters. Fox News Digital reached out to the White House for comment but did not immediately hear article source: House Dems open investigation into Trump's acceptance of $400 million jet from Qatar
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Michigan House Democrat pulls Trump impeachment resolution amid opposition
May 14 (UPI) -- Rep. Shri Thanedar, D-Mich., halted his effort to impeach President Donald Trump after House Democrats largely opposed it. Thanedar tabled the 29-page resolution that lists seven articles of impeachment that accuse Trump of corruption, abuse of power, obstruction of justice and "tyranny." The Michigan representative on Tuesday forced the House to start the clock on the impeachment resolution by moving to declare it a "privileged" resolution, which requires a House vote within two legislative days, CBS News reported. House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and other House Democrats recently discussed the matter with Thanedar and thought they had ended the effort, but the Michigan representative forced the matter anyway. Thanedar acknowledged talking with House Dems but only said he "communicated" with them and did not "seek permission," Axios reported. Much of the resolution cites efforts to reduce the size of the federal government with the help of the Department of Government Efficiency, which Thanedar says is a consolidation of power. He also accused Trump of financial gain and violating the Foreign Emoluments Clause, which requires congressional approval when accepting gifts from foreign governments or leaders. Thanedar introduced the impeachment resolution on April 28 and prior to the recent announcement of Qatar offering and Trump accepting the donation of a Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet worth an estimated $400 million. Trump intends to use the aircraft as Air Force One and afterward donate it to his presidential library, but he has not taken possession of it as of Wednesday. Rep. Greg Stanton, D-Ariz., called the impeachment resolution a "distraction" that is hurting the Democratic Party's chances of reclaiming the House majority in next year's mid-term election. "Any Democrat not focused on getting us to 218 [seats] is either wasting our time or helping Republicans," Stanton told CNN. "Either way, it's hurting the mission." Stanton leads the newly formed and centrist New Democrats Coalition. A closed-door caucus of House Democrats revealed many members who staunchly oppose the impeachment effort, including Rep. Jerry Nadler of Washington, D.C., who called the move "idiotic," CNN reported. Jeffries and other House Democratic Party leaders on Wednesday told caucus members they would vote to block the impeachment effort. Thanedar afterward relented and did not bring the resolution to the House floor for a vote, which was scheduled at 5 p.m. EDT on Wednesday.
Yahoo
14-05-2025
- Politics
- Yahoo
Trump Writes Congress out of the Constitution—and Congress Says Fine
Having brought Congress completely to heel in the political sphere, Donald Trump is now seeking to write them out of the Constitution. Both of his biggest moves of the past week entail the evisceration of a constitutional role the Framers very plainly and expressly wanted Congress to play. That is the case for the flirtation with suspension of habeas corpus, which only Congress can do. And it's even more manifest in Trump's plan to accept a $400 million (or is it $625 million?) jumbo jet 'palace in the sky' from the Qatari government. On the habeas issue, Stephen Miller's pompous primer on suspension of habeas corpus, coupled with the announcement that 'we're actively looking at [it],' was risible and unsettling in equal measure. The constitutional command he was mangling is directed to Congress, not the executive, which is why it is in Article I along with other definition of congressional power. The recognition that only Congress can suspend is essentially universal, consistently reaffirmed in court opinions from early in the nineteenth century, which themselves apply the previous ensconced practice from England. Moreover, Miller ham-handedly slices off the limiting, second half of the clause: that suspension can occur only when 'the public Safety may require it.' Whatever national crisis Trump is attempting to manufacture about the presence of immigrants in the country, the public safety does not require that courts not consider the due process rights of detainees. And his ensuing suggestion that the decision not to suspend is contingent on 'whether the courts do the right thing'—is overbearing and thuggish. But as bad as all that is, the Qatari 757 deal is even more blatant in its contempt for constitutional norms. The plane would replace Air Force One during the pendency of Trump's tenure and then be given to his presidential foundation created after his presidency presumably for his use. There is, however, a small constitutional snag. Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the Constitution—the Foreign Emoluments Clause—says that no person holding an office of the United States shall, without the consent of Congress, accept any present 'of any kind whatever' (yes, it says those very words) from any foreign state. Trump's first term was a serial violation of the domestic and foreign Emoluments Clauses, as influence seekers of all stripes clamored to support his Washington DC hotel and other businesses. But the business profits he pocketed from people seeking his goodwill in the first term are chump change next to the gaudily lavish, gold-plated (and possibly bugged) Qatari luxury jet. There is no serious argument that Trump's acceptance of the plane does not violate the Emoluments Clause. Trump has tried to trot out an argument that it's really a gift to the government and not to him. But if it's partly for his personal enjoyment—and very clearly if it winds up with his foundation and not the government after his tenure—the law is quite clear that it falls within the clause. As usual, Trump is his own worst enemy in clarifying just what's going on. Speaking to reporters on Monday, Trump noted, 'I think 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 also justified the decision by saying he would have to be a 'stupid person' not to take the plane, and he analogized the decision to agreeing to a gimme putt in golf. And we further know that Trump toured the jet in February. If Trump is the one to solicit and accept the offer, then it is not a gift to the federal government. There is apparently an opinion blessing the deal from Attorney General Pam Bondi, who herself garnered six-figure fees from Qatar for lobbying on their behalf starting in 2019. We haven't seen the analysis yet, but since Bondi sees it as her job to fight for Trump the person as opposed to the office, you can bet that it's at most as good an argument as can be made for a client—but a total loser. The argument that Trump can be expected to rely on in the coming cluster of lawsuits from NGOs and state attorneys general is that the various plaintiffs lack standing. That was the central issue in most of the Emoluments Clause litigation during Trump 1.0. The courts were divided on the question, and eventually the Supreme Court dismissed the various cases as moot because Trump had left office. In fact, properly understood, the standing issue only reinforces the unconstitutionality of what Trump is doing. It's true that it's hard to conceptualize the injury of the constitutional violation in terms of a pocketbook loss to, say, an individual state attorney general. It requires ingenuity and a court that takes a somewhat elastic view of standing. That's precisely because the constitutional injury entailed by Trump's acceptance of the palace in the sky is social, absorbed by all of us. It's precisely for that reason that the Framers specified that Congress, the representatives of the people, must determine whether a particular gift may be accepted. After all, not all gifts to officials are objectionable. Most famously, Congress in 1791 passed a resolution allowing Ben Franklin to keep a gold snuff box given to him by Louis XVI. On the other hand, Congress never exercised its authority to approve President Lincoln's request in the middle of the Civil War to keep an elephant tusk from the King of Siam (along with an elephant, which Lincoln politely declined). These two examples illustrate that the appropriateness of a particular gift is a nuanced, contextual question. The Framers were extremely concerned about the prospect that gifts could be used corruptly to buy and sell influence. But they declined to constitutionalize a categorical rule against gifts, instead opting for greater flexibility and political accountability by insisting on an overall political judgment by the body best positioned to deliver it. That judgment, by the way, is pouring in—and it's largely negative. Many people on the right and left are expressing grave reservations about Trump's excitement. The thumbs-down by noted conservative commentator Ben Shapiro is illustrative of a growing chorus of disdain from the left and right, a chorus that now includes a number of elected Republicans. On Tuesday, the Senate majority leader, John Thune of South Dakota, said of the jet, 'I can assure you there will be plenty of scrutiny of whatever that arrangement might look like.' And Senator Ted Cruz, Republican of Texas, cited national security concerns. 'I also think the plane poses significant espionage and surveillance problems,' he said. It goes without saying—anywhere but in Trump World—that the last person to decide whether a gift should be kept is the putative recipient. That means that, questions of standing aside, Trump's plain constitutional responsibility is, as with Franklin and Lincoln, to serve up to Congress the question of whether he gets to keep his gold-plated palace in the sky. And if he fails to do that, the plain reading of the Constitution is that he may not keep the plane. To do so would be to accept a present without the consent of Congress. It's not an anomaly but a matter of constitutional design that the charter establishes a limit that falls to the political branches to enforce. This being America in the twenty-first century, there surely will be lawsuits attempting to get at the constitutional problem. But the fundamental dereliction is by our political leaders: If Congress fails to take up the question of whether Trump can keep the plane, it's a fundamental disregard of its constitutional duties; likewise, if Trump tries to keep his latest and greatest toy without submitting it to Congress, he is flouting the Constitution, whatever Pam Bondi may say. The question, as always with Trump, is not what's right or lawful or even decent, but whether anybody can stop him.
