Latest news with #WithinOurMeans
Vox
a day ago
- Politics
- Vox
Trump deploying the National Guard is part of a bigger plan
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America. After protests erupted in response to federal agents raiding businesses around Los Angeles to arrest immigrants, President Donald Trump quickly decided to dump fuel on the fire: On Saturday night, the president declared that he would deploy 2,000 National Guard troops to the city. Given that presidents usually only activate the National Guard upon a governor's request, it's an extraordinary step that bypasses California Gov. Gavin Newsom's authority, since Newsom made no such appeal. This isn't the first time Trump has considered sending in the military to squash local protests. In 2020, when nationwide protests broke out after a police officer murdered George Floyd, Trump also wanted to display an overwhelming show of force to respond to the demonstrations — so much so that he even inquired about shooting protesters. But a standoff between Trump and the Pentagon eventually pushed the president to decide against deploying troops across the country. This time, Trump has a more subservient Pentagon. On Saturday, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth wrote on X that 'if violence continues, active duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized,' adding that 'they are on high alert.' The chaos unfolding in Los Angeles underscores that Americans are living under an administration that is far too eager to use the power of the state to suppress dissent and a president who is far too keen on siccing the military on American citizens. Trump's latest effort might make 2020 look like a trial run and shows just how unrestrained the president has become. Can Trump deploy the National Guard without governors' consent? It is generally illegal to use federal troops for law enforcement within the United States. But there are exceptions. The Insurrection Act — one of the president's emergency powers — allows the president to use the military against American citizens on domestic soil, including in nonconsenting states, to quell an armed rebellion or extreme civil unrest. That's why President Lyndon B. Johnson was able to deploy the National Guard to Alabama without its governor's consent in 1965 — the last time a president activated a state's National Guard troops against that state's wishes, as Elizabeth Goitein, senior director of the Liberty and National Security Program at the Brennan Center for Justice, told the New York Times. The Insurrection Act itself was last invoked in 1992, when President George H. W. Bush used it to send troops to Los Angeles in response to the Rodney King riots. However, that action was taken upon then-Gov. Pete Wilson's request. So far, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead, he has cited Section 12406 of the US Code, which gives the president the authority to call members of the National Guard of any state into federal service when 'there is a rebellion or danger of a rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States.' The president can use as many troops as he considers necessary to 'repel the invasion' or 'suppress the rebellion.' That statute, however, is more limited than the Insurrection Act since it applies only to the National Guard and not the US Armed Forces more broadly. It also states that the order to call in National Guard troops should be issued by governors. Since California did not issue that order, Newsom has said Trump's move to federalize California's National Guard is 'unlawful' and requested that the federal government rescind the deployment. Newsom indicated that his office intends to sue the Trump administration over this matter. Trump is escalating his assault on Americans' fundamental rights — just like he said he would Trump has long made clear his disdain for dissent and protests against him, and now he's taking it to the next level. His move to deploy National Guard troops in California is already an escalation from how he responded to the George Floyd protests in 2020. At the time, Trump focused his efforts on Washington, DC, where — perhaps in a prelude to how he is handling the protests in Los Angeles today — he sent National Guard troops from 11 states into the nation's capital. DC's mayor objected to the deployment, but because DC is not a state, Trump had more leeway to exercise military muscle. He ultimately decided against deploying the military in other states. Trump's reliance on federal officers to squash protests made DC a testing ground for a strategy he could eventually try elsewhere. What he's now doing in California is the natural next step. Indeed, after Trump left the White House in 2021, he lamented over his administration's supposed restraint during the George Floyd protests and said that should he return to power, he wouldn't wait for governors to make requests for federal assistance. 'You're supposed to not be involved in that, you just have to be asked by the governor or the mayor to come in,' he said in a 2023 campaign rally. 'The next time, I'm not waiting.' During the campaign trail, he and his allies mapped out plans to invoke the Insurrection Act on his first day back in office to quell protests with military force. That is precisely why so many feared a second Trump term. Where Trump may have shown more restraint in his first administration — because he feared political consequences or because some officials stood in the way — critics feared he would be more unleashed in his second, both because he has nothing to lose and because his Cabinet would be staffed with even more loyalists. And that seems to be what's happening now, with the Pentagon seeming just as eager as Trump to unleash the US military on US soil and against American citizens. This is all part of Trump's broader assault on democracy — and his attack on the First Amendment in particular. Since coming back to the White House, Trump hasn't hesitated to punish people for exercising their right to free speech and their right to protest, going after students for participating in protests against Israel. His administration has detained and tried to deport protesters for merely expressing pro-Palestinian views, sending unidentified plainclothes immigration officers to abduct dissidents. Trump is now trying to use the might of the US military to further suppress people's free speech rights, dramatically expanding his crackdown on people's rights. And while Trump cited 'violence and disorder' as the reason he deployed National Guard troops, local law enforcement had not indicated that they were in need of federal assistance to restore order. What likely pushed Trump to deploy the National Guard (and get other members of the Armed Forces ready) is that he simply saw an opportunity to do so and he seized it. He is clearly more emboldened and even more averse to norms than ever before. Since Trump got himself involved in the protests, tensions have only escalated. But if anything, that might be what Trump wants: a dramatic standoff between protesters and federal troops. Ultimately, this strategy is less about 'law and order' and more about sending a message to Americans across the country: speak out against Trump and there will be consequences.
Vox
2 days ago
- Business
- Vox
The big, beautiful bill is bad news for student loans
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America. If the 'big, beautiful bill,' President Donald Trump's signature legislative priority, eventually becomes law, it would gut some social programs that many people rely on. As my colleague Dylan Scott wrote in a thorough explainer, the package, which House Republicans passed last month, could result in millions of people losing their health care because of proposed work requirements on Medicaid. There's also another part of the bill that really stands out when it comes to how Trump's domestic policy package will hurt low-income families: its overhaul of student loan programs. From changing eligibility requirements for Pell Grants, which help low-income students pay for college, to capping how much money students can borrow to cover the cost of tuition, the legislation would put a college education further out of reach for many Americans. Within Our Means A newsletter about ending poverty in America, from correspondent Abdallah Fayyad. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. These cuts aren't inevitable. The bill still has to pass through the Senate through an expedited process called reconciliation before Trump can sign it into law, and the unfolding (and very public) drama between the president and Elon Musk over the bill makes it unclear how congressional Republicans will proceed. But in the meantime, here's what's at stake: Pell Grant recipients are in trouble According to the liberal think tank New America, the lack of publicly available data makes it difficult (or impossible) to analyze the full projected impact of the bill, but numbers from the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office (CBO) show that more than half of Pell Grant recipients would see a reduction in aid, and at least 10 percent would lose their grants altogether. That's mainly because of how the bill changes eligibility requirements for Pell Grant recipients. The biggest change would be the number of course credits students have to take in order to remain eligible for the amount of aid they currently get. To receive the maximum Pell Grant of $7,395, students would have to take 30 credit hours each year, up from 24. The number of credits for part-time students would go up from 12 to 15. The bill also eliminates eligibility for students who are considered less than half-time students. These grants are crucial in helping students from low-income families attend college. In the 2023–2024 academic year, around 6.5 million students received a Pell grant. According to the Washington Post, the vast majority of Pell Grant recipients come from families making less than $60,000 a year, with about two-thirds coming from families earning less than $30,000. Because Pell Grants aren't loans and don't need to be paid back, they make college more affordable to students who otherwise might not be able to access an education beyond their high school diploma. Undermining these grants would ultimately make college — and a future with higher earning potential — out of reach for too many people living in poverty. While proponents of the bill might argue that the eligibility changes would simply require students to focus more of their time on school, the reality is that many students — especially part-timers — have other responsibilities, including jobs and family, and are unlikely to be able to take on more course work. As a result, the cuts to Pell Grants will likely hurt students who need it most. The proposed changes are especially worrisome for community colleges, where many part-time students who stand to see their grants reduced are enrolled. According to the American Association of Community Colleges, some 400,000 Pell Grant recipients who attend community colleges might see their aid entirely eliminated. Other changes in the bill It's not just Pell Grants that Republicans are targeting with the big, beautiful bill. If the legislation becomes law, students from low- and middle-income families might also see the cost of college actually increase. The bill proposes to eliminate subsidized loans, which don't accrue interest while students are in school. The bill also imposes a lifetime cap on how much students can borrow, including a limit based on the median cost of a given program. And while capping how much money people can borrow is generally a good idea because higher amounts of debt can drag people down, the proposed limits don't account for varying costs by state or university. Professional programs, including medical school, would be especially difficult to finance, which is why some have been warning that the bill could worsen America's doctor shortage. Another way these cuts might make college more expensive is that students might turn to private lenders with higher interest rates. As Julie Margetta Morgan, the president of the Century Foundation, recently told me, 'It's not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it's also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in.' So while Musk and Trump argue (at least in part) over whether this bill is cutting enough spending, the reality is the legislation as proposed would already be devastating for many families. And just like the proposed Medicaid cuts, the provisions involving student loans make it clear that the bill's burden will fall on some of the country's most vulnerable people. This story was featured in the Within Our Means newsletter. Sign up here.
Vox
6 days ago
- Business
- Vox
Big government is still good, even with Trump in power
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America. It's easy to look at Donald Trump's second term and conclude that the less power and reach the federal government has, the better. After all, a smaller government might provide Trump or someone like him with fewer opportunities to disrupt people's lives, leaving America less vulnerable to the whims of an aspiring autocrat. Weaker law-enforcement agencies could lack the capacity to enforce draconian policies. The president would have less say in how universities like Columbia conduct their business if they weren't so dependent on federal funding. And he would have fewer resources to fundamentally change the American way of life. Trump's presidency has the potential to reshape an age-old debate between the left and the right: Is it better to have a big government or a small one? The left, which has long advocated for bigger government as a solution to society's problems, might be inclined to think that in the age of Trump, a strong government may be too risky. Say the United States had a single-payer universal health care system, for example. As my colleague Kelsey Piper pointed out, the government would have a lot of power to decide what sorts of medical treatments should and shouldn't be covered, and certain forms of care that the right doesn't support — like abortion or transgender health — would likely get cut when they're in power. That's certainly a valid concern. But the dangers Trump poses do not ultimately make the case for a small or weak government because the principal problem with the Trump presidency is not that he or the federal government has too much power. It's that there's not enough oversight. Reducing the power of the government wouldn't necessarily protect us. In fact, 'making government smaller' is one of the ways that Trump might be consolidating power. First things first: What is 'big government'? When Americans are polled about how they feel about 'big government' programs — policies like universal health care, social security, welfare for the poor — the majority of people tend to support them. Nearly two-thirds of Americans believe the government should be responsible for ensuring everyone has health coverage. But when you ask Americans whether they support 'big government' in the abstract, a solid majority say they view it as a threat. That might sound like a story of contradictions. But it also makes sense because 'big government' can have many different meanings. It can be a police state that surveils its citizens, an expansive regulatory state that establishes and enforces rules for the private sector, a social welfare state that directly provides a decent standard of living for everyone, or some combination of the three. In the United States, the debate over 'big government' can also include arguments about federalism, or how much power the federal government should have over states. All these distinctions complicate the debate over the size of government: Because while someone might support a robust welfare system, they might simultaneously be opposed to being governed by a surveillance state or having the federal government involved in state and local affairs. As much as Americans like to fantasize about small government, the reality is that the wealthiest economies in the world have all been a product of big government, and the United States is no exception. That form of government includes providing a baseline social safety net, funding basic services, and regulating commerce. It also includes a government that has the capacity to enforce its rules and regulations. A robust state that caters to the needs of its people, that is able to respond quickly in times of crisis, is essential. Take the Covid-19 pandemic. The US government, under both the Trump and Biden administrations, was able to inject trillions of dollars into the economy to avert a sustained economic downturn. As a result, people were able to withstand the economic shocks, and poverty actually declined. Stripping the state of the basic powers it needs to improve the lives of its citizens will only make it less effective and erode people's faith in it as a central institution, making people less likely to participate in the democratic process, comply with government policies, or even accept election outcomes. A constrained government does not mean a small government But what happens when the people in power have no respect for democracy? The argument for a weaker and smaller government often suggests that a smaller government would be more constrained in the harm it can cause, while big government is more unrestrained. In this case, the argument is that if the US had a smaller government, then Trump could not effectively use the power of the state — by, say, deploying federal law enforcement agencies or withholding federal funds — to deport thousands of immigrants, bully universities, and assault fundamental rights like the freedom of speech. But advocating for bigger government does not mean you believe in handing the state unlimited power to do as it pleases. Ultimately, the most important way to constrain government has less to do with its size and scope and more to do with its checks and balances. Related Three reasons why American democracy will likely withstand Trump In fact, one of the biggest checks on Trump's power so far has been the structure of the US government, not its size. Trump's most dangerous examples of overreach — his attempts to conduct mass deportations, eliminate birthright citizenship, and revoke student visas and green cards based on political views — have been an example of how proper oversight has the potential to limit government overreach. To be sure, Trump's policies have already upended people's lives, chilled speech, and undermined the principle of due process. But while Trump has pushed through some of his agenda, he hasn't been able to deliver at the scale he promised. But that's not because the federal government lacks the capacity to do those things. It's because we have three equal branches of government, and the judicial branch, for all of its shortcomings in the Trump era, is still doing its most basic job to keep the executive branch in check. Reforms should include more oversight, not shrinking government The biggest lesson from Trump's first term was that America's system of checks and balances — rules and regulations, norms, and the separate branches of government — wasn't strong enough. As it turned out, a lot of potential oversight mechanisms did not have enough teeth to meaningfully restrain the president from abusing his power. Trump incited an assault on the US Capitol in an effort to overturn the 2020 election, and Congress ultimately failed in its duty to convict him for his actions. Twice, impeachment was shown to be a useless tool to keep a president in check. But again that's a problem of oversight, not of the size and power of government. Still, oversight mechanisms need to be baked into big government programs to insulate them from petty politics or volatile changes from one administration to the next. Take the example of the hypothetical single-payer universal health care system. Laws dictating which treatments should be covered should be designed to ensure that changes to them aren't dictated by the president alone, but through some degree of consensus that involves regulatory boards, Congress, and the courts. Ultimately, social programs should have mechanisms that allow for change so that laws don't become outdated, as they do now. And while it's impossible to guarantee that those changes will always be good, the current system of employer-sponsored health insurance is hardly a stable alternative. By contrast, shrinking government in the way that Republicans often talk about only makes people more vulnerable. Bigger governments — and more bureaucracy — can also insulate public institutions from the whims of an erratic president. For instance, Trump has tried to shutter the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB), a regulatory agency that gets in the way of his and his allies' business. This assault allows Trump to serve his own interests by pleasing his donors. In other words, Trump is currently trying to make government smaller — by shrinking or eliminating agencies that get in his way — to consolidate power. 'Despite Donald Trump's rhetoric about the size or inefficiency of government, what he has done is eradicate agencies that directly served people,' said Julie Margetta Morgan, president of The Century Foundation who previously served as an associate director at the CFPB. 'He may use the language of 'government inefficiency' to accomplish his goals, but I think what we're seeing is that the goals are in fact to open up more lanes for big businesses to run roughshod over the American people.' The problem for small-government advocates is that the alternative to big government is not just small government. It's also big business because fewer services, rules, and regulations open up the door to privatization and monopolization. And while the government, however big, has to answer to the public, businesses are far less accountable. One example of how business can replace government programs is the Republicans' effort to overhaul student loan programs in the latest reconciliation bill the House passed, which includes eliminating subsidized loans and limiting the amount of aid students receive. The idea is that if students can't get enough federal loans to cover the cost of school, they'll turn to private lenders instead. 'It's not only cutting Pell Grants and the affordability of student loan programs in order to fund tax cuts to the wealthy, but it's also creating a gap where [private lenders] are all too happy to come in,' Margetta Morgan said. 'This is the small government alternative: It's cutting back on programs that provided direct services for people — that made their lives better and more affordable — and replacing it with companies that will use that gap as an opportunity for extraction and, in some cases, for predatory services.' Even with flawed oversight, a bigger and more powerful government is still preferable because it can address people's most basic needs, whereas small government and the privatization of public services often lead to worse outcomes. So while small government might sound like a nice alternative when would-be tyrants rise to power, the alternative to big government would only be more corrosive to democracy, consolidating power in the hands of even fewer people (and businesses). And ultimately, there's one big way for Trump to succeed at destroying democracy, and that's not by expanding government but by eliminating the parts of government that get in his way.
Vox
22-05-2025
- Business
- Vox
There's a better way to help underpaid workers than 'no tax on tips'
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America. 'No tax on tips' was one of President Donald Trump's campaign promises that caught on with voters and received bipartisan support. Mandel Ngan/AFP via Getty Images On Tuesday, the Senate unanimously passed the No Tax on Tips Act, pushing one of President Donald Trump's campaign promises one step closer to becoming law. The pledge to eliminate federal taxes on service and hospitality workers' tips rallied voters in the 2024 election, so much so that even former Vice President Kamala Harris endorsed the idea in her campaign against Trump. Now, both Democrats and Republicans on Capitol Hill seem to want to make it a reality. It's easy to see why 'no tax on tips' has broad bipartisan support: It looks like a populist policy that gives lower-wage workers much-needed relief, and opposing it might make you seem out of touch with the working class. But as I wrote last year, 'no tax on tips' would actually be more of a tax break for businesses that would cost the federal government an estimated $10 billion to $15 billion a year in tax revenue. Within Our Means A newsletter about ending poverty in America, from correspondent Abdallah Fayyad. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. In short, the policy incentivizes businesses to lower workers' wages and make them rely more on tips. But that's exactly the opposite of what workers — and tipped workers in particular — need. Tipped workers are underpaid. Some of them would certainly see their take-home pay increase if the federal government stops taxing them on tips, assuming that their wages stay the same. But tips can be volatile, and often vary by season, and a 'no tax on tips' policy would make offseasons worse for tipped workers, who will likely be stuck with lower base pay. The reality is that the problem for tipped workers isn't that their taxes are too high — it's that their wages are far too low. Plus, not having their taxes tipped means workers might end up accruing less credit toward their Social Security. In fact, many underpaid workers won't even see a difference from the policy. Some tipped workers — by some estimates more than a third of them — earn so little that they are already exempt from income taxes, which means that a 'no tax on tips' law would do nothing to boost their take-home pay. More than that, 'no tax on tips' doesn't help out most low-wage workers: More than 95 percent of low- and moderate-wage workers don't receive tips on a regular basis. So while Congress busies itself with flashy tax cuts that won't go too far in helping low-wage workers, it might be better to focus on the root cause of tipped workers' problem: the subminimum wage. What is the subminimum wage and why is it so low? The last federal minimum wage increase was in 2009, and it's been the same since: $7.25 per hour. Many states have minimum wages that are higher than the federal level — but most also have a subminimum wage for tipped workers. That's a carveout that allows employers to pay their workers less so long as they make up the difference in tips, and that wage is just $2.13 per hour. If a subminimum wage worker doesn't make enough tips to reach the full minimum wage, the employer is required to pay the difference. These tiered minimum wages date back to the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), passed in 1938. The legislation created a subminimum wage with the intention of encouraging employers to hire people 'whose earning capacity is impaired by age or physical or mental deficiency or injury.' The idea was to ensure that job opportunities and work training programs would still be available for people with disabilities. But in 1966, Congress amended the FLSA to include a subminimum wage for workers who regularly receive tips, hoping this would lower payroll costs for service-sector businesses. This change fundamentally changed the culture around tipping: While customers used to give workers tips as a show of gratitude, tips became a necessity for workers in order to make ends meet. Since then, workers in the service and hospitality sectors in most places have been subject to a subminimum wage that has not increased since 1991. While tipped wages are often sold to workers as a benefit — in theory, there's no limit to how much they can make if customers are generous — the reality is that their overall take-home pay, even including tips, is often not enough. For example, the median wage for waiters in 2024 was $33,760, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, and the bottom 10 percent of waiters earned about $18,000. For context, the standard deduction — that is, the portion of your income that is untaxed — is $29,200 for a married couple and $14,600 for an individual. 'No tax on tips' might give waiters a small tax break, but it's hardly enough to work as a meaningful solution to low wages. The movement to abolish the subminimum wage Many workers have grown frustrated with the tiered minimum wage system, leading to the creation of organizations like One Fair Wage, which advocates for getting rid of the subminimum wage — a measure that would likely help alleviate poverty. (At least eight states have eliminated the subminimum wage for tipped workers.) And because a handful of states have already abolished the subminimum wage in favor of one equal minimum wage for tipped and non-tipped workers alike, we can see how the former holds workers back. According to an analysis by the Center for American Progress, tipped workers have a higher poverty rate in states with a subminimum wage compared to states that have abolished it. In states with the subminimum wage, 14.8 percent of tipped workers live in poverty. By contrast, those same workers have a poverty rate of 11 percent in states that have gotten rid of the subminimum wage. The biggest problem with the 'no tax on tips' idea is that it will likely only suppress wages, which will ultimately hurt workers in the long run. There are better ways Congress can help low-wage workers than eliminating taxes on tips, including by expanding the standard deduction — giving a meaningful tax cut to all low-wage workers, not just those who receive tips — or by finally getting rid of the subminimum wage. And they might consider increasing the minimum wage while they're at it. After all, a raise is long overdue.
Vox
13-05-2025
- Politics
- Vox
How corrupt is Trump's plan to accept a Qatari plane?
is a correspondent at Vox, where he covers the impacts of social and economic policies. He is the author of 'Within Our Means,' a biweekly newsletter on ending poverty in America. The Qatari royal family has proposed gifting the president a luxury Boeing 747-8 plane to use as a temporary Air Force One during his remaining time in the White House. The aircraft would then be donated to his presidential foundation after he leaves office, opening up the possibility of Trump using it for personal travel. (While the New York Times reported that a Qatari official said the proposal is still being discussed, Trump plans to accept the gift — though he told reporters on Monday that he would not use the plane once his presidency ends.) The plane is estimated to cost around $400 million, and Democrats have criticized the idea of the president receiving such an expensive gift. 'This is not normal. This is blatant corruption,' Sen. Ed Markey of Massachusetts wrote on X. 'Trump First, America Last.' Trump defended the plan, saying he would be a 'stupid person' if he declined the gesture. '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,' Trump wrote in a social media post. 'Anybody can do that! The Dems are World Class Losers!!!' Related Trump has set up a perfect avenue for potential corruption But it's not just Democrats who are worried about the transaction. Some Republican senators have also raised security and legal concerns, with Sen. Shelley Moore Capito of West Virginia saying that the White House would 'need to look at the constitutionality' of the gift. It's true that part of the job of being president of the United States is to engage in diplomacy, and that very often includes exchanging gifts with foreign dignitaries and governments. Many of these gifts are symbolic gestures, like the pair of pandas China presented to President Richard Nixon in 1972. Other gifts are luxurious and intended to impress, like the $20,000, 7.5-carat diamond India presented to former first lady Jill Biden in 2023. Presidents have also received gifts in the form of 300 pounds of raw lamb, a puppy, oriental rugs, a gold mechanical bird, swords, and a Burberry coat. So what's different this time? And why should we care about what other countries give to the president? How presidents are supposed to accept gifts As past administrations have shown, it's typical for presidents to accept gifts. But there are still laws in place to ensure that governments, be they foreign or domestic, can't curry favor with presidents this way. In 1966, Congress passed a law — the Foreign Gifts and Decorations Act — to cap the monetary value of a gift the president is allowed to personally accept. As of 2023, that amount is $480. This means that the president can accept gifts of any amount on behalf of the country but, after leaving office, they can only keep the gifts that are worth less than $480. If they want to hold on to a more expensive gift, they have to buy it themselves from the government at the estimated market rate. Otherwise, these gifts are typically sent to the National Archives, ultimately transferring ownership to the American people, not any specific individual. That's why the Bidens didn't take home the diamond from India and instead left it behind in the East Wing for official use. And the puppy was given to a family in Maryland because, per Axios, it 'couldn't be archived.' And it's probably safe to say that no president has ever accepted a gift worth $400 million. In addition to the Foreign Gifts and Declarations Act, the US Constitution also has two emoluments clauses. These bar presidents from receiving money or gifts from foreign governments, as well as other branches of the US government, to prevent special interests from having undue influence over the president's decision-making. So before the 1966 reforms, per the Constitution, Congress had to approve every gift that a president received if they were to keep it personally — something that became harder and harder to do as the United States' influence grew and gifts became more commonplace. Trump was sued for violating the emoluments during his first term, though the Supreme Court ultimately dismissed the cases in 2021. Why this matters The first and perhaps most important question you should ask about the whole plane gifting controversy is this: Why would a foreign government even want to give the president a gift worth $400 million? Sure, it might be intended as a good gesture, but a gesture that pricey almost certainly comes with the expectation that the president will give Qatar something in return. There doesn't need to be an explicit quid pro quo to assume that the gift might be more of an investment — just like those looking to buy influence in the Trump White House might flock to buy stock in his media company or some of his meme coins. The fact that this proposed gift comes at the heels of the Trump Organization striking a deal to build a luxury golf resort in Qatar should also raise eyebrows. But while the plan to gift Trump the plane is not finalized and might not happen, the fact that Trump considered and defended the idea is still concerning, even if his past history shows that it's entirely unsurprising. After all, in his first term, foreign governments spent millions of dollars on his private businesses. Last year, his media company went public, making his conflicts of interest even worse by allowing anyone to buy shares in his business. And just last month, he offered to host a dinner for the top investors in his crypto meme coin — which he launched days before the start of his second term — calling it 'the most EXCLUSIVE INVITATION in the World.' That Trump is not only open to receiving a $400 million plane but also argues that it's a prudent move clearly shows that the US president is more than willing to accept extravagant gifts. That's a problem in and of itself because it encourages other foreign governments to offer similar gifts in the hopes of currying favor with Trump or generating goodwill. This will only add to the many conflicts of interest Trump already has, making it even harder to understand where his loyalties stand and whom he might be beholden to. It's likely that Trump will run into a legal headache trying to accept this particular gift, especially because of his desire to transfer it over to his presidential library. House Democrats are already seeking a probe into the potential jet, and some have argued that it's outright unconstitutional. 'A gift you use for four years and then deposit in your library is still a gift (and a grift),' Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland wrote on X. In theory, if the president accepts the plane and the government maintains ownership of it — be it through the National Archives or keeping it operational for future presidents or some other official use — then it wouldn't necessarily violate any ethics laws.
