At last, America is catching up with global democratic standards. For too long, it has been constrained by the quaint prohibitions of the 18th century — blinkered by a Constitution that takes a dim view of high-value gifts from foreign rulers. But now, thanks to President Trump’s pioneering jurisprudence, the republic has finally entered the modern diplomatic age. The Qatari jet is not a constitutional violation. It is a breakthrough in applied emolument theory.
Once Trump leaves office, the aircraft will become the prized possession of his presidential library — technically owned by his foundation rather than personally, because that makes all the difference. Attorney General Pam Bondi has issued a memo declaring the arrangement legal under an expansive interpretation of the phrase “not technically his” — like handing a Rolex to an intern and asking them to hold it for their boss until he retires.
Still, one or two constitutional lawyers — obviously still flying commercial — have expressed concern, as has Peter Smith in these pages. The U.S. Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits any federal officeholder from accepting gifts from foreign governments without congressional consent.
“This is a textbook violation,” said Columbia Law Professor Richard Briffault, wh it must be admitted is both an ardent Democrat and significant contributor to the party’s coffers. The Qatar aircraft meets every element of a prohibited foreign gift: a “present of any kind,” from a “foreign state,” conferring obvious “personal benefit” — three ticks on the Founders’ “Please Don’t Do This” checklist. But such narrow thinking explains why American democracy has lagged behind other powerful political systems – like Russia’s.
Indeed, historical precedents reveal how primitive past administrations were in handling foreign generosity. When President Martin Van Buren received lions and Arabian horses from foreign rulers in 1839, Congress forced him to surrender them to zoos and museums. How refreshingly quaint that approach seems now.
Similarly, when President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize’s $1.4 million award, he donated the entire sum to charity. Surely, everyone can see that this was unnecessary virtue-signalling compared to Trump’s confident acceptance of Qatar’s meaningful gesture.
The contrast with Trump’s new, sophisticated approach is instructive. His first-term gift management already showed innovative thinking — over 100 items from foreign governments disappeared mysteriously from White House records, including a life-size portrait of Trump from El Salvador. Rather than bureaucratic over-documentation, this represented the start of a more streamlined gift administration. One that eliminates tedious paperwork.
Federal law may require gifts over $480 to become government property. But a $400 million aircraft operates under different mathematics. The contrast between the legal threshold and Qatar’s generosity merely demonstrates how unworkable gift regulations have become.
The administration estimates retrofitting could cost hundreds of millions — potentially approaching the value of Qatar’s original gift. But as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explained, “You can’t put a price on friendship,” especially when taxpayers cover the conversion costs.
Critics fret about America’s international reputation, but such concerns reflect outdated thinking about global leadership. The Qatar arrangement clearly enhances America’s standing by demonstrating the US has matured beyond rigid constitutional fundamentalism.
Other nations respect leaders who understand that meaningful relationships require meaningful gestures. Granted, they may not be members of the OECD, but neither may the U.S. if Trump keeps up his current pace.
Countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America have long appreciated the practical diplomacy that Trump now brings to American foreign policy. Banana republics have always understood the value of such flexibility. Why waste time with congressional approvals when a cooperative executive branch can resolve matters with a memo?The Founders who crafted the Emoluments Clause were clearly overthinking the issue. They worried that foreign gifts might corrupt republican officials, having witnessed how European monarchies undermined governments through strategic generosity.
But they failed to anticipate how sophisticated modern leaders could separate personal benefits from policy decisions. Trump’s arrangement proves that a truly confident president can accept a $400 million aircraft from an absolute monarchy without any risk of compromised judgment — a level of self-discipline the Framers simply couldn’t have imagined.
Sure, national security experts have raised some tedious objections about foreign surveillance equipment. But this paranoia reflects outdated Cold War thinking. After all, what better way to drain the swamp than with a gift from the country that simultaneously rents hangar space to U.S. CENTCOM and hosts the political leadership of Hamas? The Qatari government: proof that in foreign policy, you really can be all things to all people.
Conservative reaction has ranged from misguided purism to proper understanding of modern governance. Some Republicans, apparently still trapped by constitutional literalism, have expressed concern. Senator Rand Paul declared he “wouldn’t take it,” demonstrating the kind of rigid thinking that has held American diplomacy back for decades. Senator Susan Collins worried about “compliance with the gift law” — clearly missing the sophisticated legal framework Attorney-General Bondi has established.
Even some traditionally supportive conservative commentators have momentarily lost their bearings. Ben Shapiro called the arrangement “skeezy,” apparently forgetting that strategic alliance-building requires flexibility. Laura Loomer’s alarm over “jihadists in suits” marks a regrettable failure to appreciate Qatar’s nuanced contribution to presidential infrastructure. Such reactions demonstrate how constitutional fundamentalism can cloud practical judgment — exactly the kind of cumbersome oversight that Trump’s streamlined approach is designed to eliminate.
Fortunately, more enlightened Republicans understand the realities of contemporary leadership. Senator Tommy Tuberville grasped the essential point: “Free is good… If it’s legal for him to accept that gift and be able to fly on that for the next four years, I think it’s great.” Senator Markwayne Mullin dismissed the controversy as the “stupidest” issue, while Steve Daines captured the pragmatic conservative position perfectly: “You can’t beat free.”
When schoolchildren tour Trump’s library and see Qatar’s Boeing 747 on the runway, they’ll witness tangible evidence of how far American constitutional arrangements evolved under the Trump presidency. Trump himself has already shared his vision for the aircraft’s ultimate destiny: “Someday, when they land this beautiful aircraft on the front lawn of my library — the greatest library, by the way, probably ever built — people will say, ‘This man knew how to lead. And how to fly first class.’”
The Qatari jet is undoubtedly a fitting monument to Trump’s presidency. Real Trump supporters understand the trade-offs. Yes, accepting luxury aircraft from an Arabian prince might once have raised eyebrows. But when a president is waging the culture war conservatives have long demanded, what’s a foreign gratuity or two? Even if it has a $400 million price tag.
True, Trump may be dismantling the American-led world order, trampling on the constitution, and taking an approach to ethics laws that would make a banana republic blush. And, of course, no one believes Qatar expects anything in return. Except, perhaps, influence and access. Or the quiet assurance that next time U.S. policy collides with Gulf priorities, discretion will prevail over principle — at 35,000 feet.
But at least he’s giving it to Harvard.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
Once Trump leaves office, the aircraft will become the prized possession of his presidential library — technically owned by his foundation rather than personally, because that makes all the difference. Attorney General Pam Bondi has issued a memo declaring the arrangement legal under an expansive interpretation of the phrase “not technically his” — like handing a Rolex to an intern and asking them to hold it for their boss until he retires.
Still, one or two constitutional lawyers — obviously still flying commercial — have expressed concern, as has Peter Smith in these pages. The U.S. Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause prohibits any federal officeholder from accepting gifts from foreign governments without congressional consent.
“This is a textbook violation,” said Columbia Law Professor Richard Briffault, wh it must be admitted is both an ardent Democrat and significant contributor to the party’s coffers. The Qatar aircraft meets every element of a prohibited foreign gift: a “present of any kind,” from a “foreign state,” conferring obvious “personal benefit” — three ticks on the Founders’ “Please Don’t Do This” checklist. But such narrow thinking explains why American democracy has lagged behind other powerful political systems – like Russia’s.
Indeed, historical precedents reveal how primitive past administrations were in handling foreign generosity. When President Martin Van Buren received lions and Arabian horses from foreign rulers in 1839, Congress forced him to surrender them to zoos and museums. How refreshingly quaint that approach seems now.
Similarly, when President Obama received the Nobel Peace Prize’s $1.4 million award, he donated the entire sum to charity. Surely, everyone can see that this was unnecessary virtue-signalling compared to Trump’s confident acceptance of Qatar’s meaningful gesture.
The contrast with Trump’s new, sophisticated approach is instructive. His first-term gift management already showed innovative thinking — over 100 items from foreign governments disappeared mysteriously from White House records, including a life-size portrait of Trump from El Salvador. Rather than bureaucratic over-documentation, this represented the start of a more streamlined gift administration. One that eliminates tedious paperwork.
Federal law may require gifts over $480 to become government property. But a $400 million aircraft operates under different mathematics. The contrast between the legal threshold and Qatar’s generosity merely demonstrates how unworkable gift regulations have become.
The administration estimates retrofitting could cost hundreds of millions — potentially approaching the value of Qatar’s original gift. But as Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent explained, “You can’t put a price on friendship,” especially when taxpayers cover the conversion costs.
Critics fret about America’s international reputation, but such concerns reflect outdated thinking about global leadership. The Qatar arrangement clearly enhances America’s standing by demonstrating the US has matured beyond rigid constitutional fundamentalism.
Other nations respect leaders who understand that meaningful relationships require meaningful gestures. Granted, they may not be members of the OECD, but neither may the U.S. if Trump keeps up his current pace.
Countries across Africa, Asia, and Latin America have long appreciated the practical diplomacy that Trump now brings to American foreign policy. Banana republics have always understood the value of such flexibility. Why waste time with congressional approvals when a cooperative executive branch can resolve matters with a memo?The Founders who crafted the Emoluments Clause were clearly overthinking the issue. They worried that foreign gifts might corrupt republican officials, having witnessed how European monarchies undermined governments through strategic generosity.
But they failed to anticipate how sophisticated modern leaders could separate personal benefits from policy decisions. Trump’s arrangement proves that a truly confident president can accept a $400 million aircraft from an absolute monarchy without any risk of compromised judgment — a level of self-discipline the Framers simply couldn’t have imagined.
Sure, national security experts have raised some tedious objections about foreign surveillance equipment. But this paranoia reflects outdated Cold War thinking. After all, what better way to drain the swamp than with a gift from the country that simultaneously rents hangar space to U.S. CENTCOM and hosts the political leadership of Hamas? The Qatari government: proof that in foreign policy, you really can be all things to all people.
Conservative reaction has ranged from misguided purism to proper understanding of modern governance. Some Republicans, apparently still trapped by constitutional literalism, have expressed concern. Senator Rand Paul declared he “wouldn’t take it,” demonstrating the kind of rigid thinking that has held American diplomacy back for decades. Senator Susan Collins worried about “compliance with the gift law” — clearly missing the sophisticated legal framework Attorney-General Bondi has established.
Even some traditionally supportive conservative commentators have momentarily lost their bearings. Ben Shapiro called the arrangement “skeezy,” apparently forgetting that strategic alliance-building requires flexibility. Laura Loomer’s alarm over “jihadists in suits” marks a regrettable failure to appreciate Qatar’s nuanced contribution to presidential infrastructure. Such reactions demonstrate how constitutional fundamentalism can cloud practical judgment — exactly the kind of cumbersome oversight that Trump’s streamlined approach is designed to eliminate.
Fortunately, more enlightened Republicans understand the realities of contemporary leadership. Senator Tommy Tuberville grasped the essential point: “Free is good… If it’s legal for him to accept that gift and be able to fly on that for the next four years, I think it’s great.” Senator Markwayne Mullin dismissed the controversy as the “stupidest” issue, while Steve Daines captured the pragmatic conservative position perfectly: “You can’t beat free.”
When schoolchildren tour Trump’s library and see Qatar’s Boeing 747 on the runway, they’ll witness tangible evidence of how far American constitutional arrangements evolved under the Trump presidency. Trump himself has already shared his vision for the aircraft’s ultimate destiny: “Someday, when they land this beautiful aircraft on the front lawn of my library — the greatest library, by the way, probably ever built — people will say, ‘This man knew how to lead. And how to fly first class.’”
The Qatari jet is undoubtedly a fitting monument to Trump’s presidency. Real Trump supporters understand the trade-offs. Yes, accepting luxury aircraft from an Arabian prince might once have raised eyebrows. But when a president is waging the culture war conservatives have long demanded, what’s a foreign gratuity or two? Even if it has a $400 million price tag.
True, Trump may be dismantling the American-led world order, trampling on the constitution, and taking an approach to ethics laws that would make a banana republic blush. And, of course, no one believes Qatar expects anything in return. Except, perhaps, influence and access. Or the quiet assurance that next time U.S. policy collides with Gulf priorities, discretion will prevail over principle — at 35,000 feet.
But at least he’s giving it to Harvard.
Roger Partridge is chairman and a co-founder of The New Zealand Initiative and is a senior member of its research team. He led law firm Bell Gully as executive chairman from 2007 to 2014. This article was first published HERE
6 comments:
I recall the Clinton Foundation getting US$ 145 million from Russian sources associated to the Russian energy company Rosatom. By sheer coincidence the Obama/Biden administration gave the Russians via Rosatom 20% control of US Uranium deposits. Nothing unusual about that!
Roger, Roger, Roger. Your anti-Trump predilection shows in every article.
Thoroughly entertaining piece. As clever as it is brutal. Pity it will be wasted on many of the followers of this platform. A bit like Anon 3.34am whose delusions seem to keep him up at night.
Nothing delusional about quoting facts Jonesy.
How about acknowledging the truck load of those involved in repeated Biden family coverups who are finally admitting they were all complicit in corrupt activities shielding an administration lead by a brain dead President - not to mention the Hunter Biden laptop coverup that cost Trump the 2020 Presidential race.
It is extraordinary that any sane person could condone the corrupt practices that were pursued at a time when the fate of the Free World was hanging in the balance.
Imagine what would have happened had the Commander in chief been asked to respond to a Chinese invasion of Taiwan when he was away in the garden talking to non existent dead people.
But according to you, all is forgiven in pursuit of the end goal - stop Trump!
Unbelievable!
Welcome back Mr Bibby. I see you are once again banging on about facts, which is never a sound approach when trying to defend Trump. I presume the coverups you mention relate to Biden's alleged health issues. Not sure those count as facts. More like a desperate attempt to deflect public attention from the reality of Trump 2.1. But in any case, the whole argument is a straw man. The issues raised didn't stop his administration delivering the strongest economy in decades to the incoming Trump administration. The stock market was booming. Inflation was back in its box without the need for a recession. Productivity was world leading. The labour market was the strongest in generations. And that's not my assessment. These are real facts, as reported by reputable sources. For example the Economist magazine ran a story saying the US economy was “the envy of the world” and had “left other rich countries in the dust". The Guardian said "by standard economic measures, the US economy was in excellent shape when Biden turned over the White House keys to Trump". Not bad for an old and allegedly sick man. Trump said otherwise. He was lying of course. And then he proceeded to wreck it all in under a hundred days. Now that's a fact worthy of inclusion in the Guiness Book of Records. The fastest trashing of an economy in history. And that's how history will remember Trump. And you have the nerve to focus on Hunter Biden's laptop!
Anon at 4.31pm - the "strongest economy in decades" delivered by Biden was pumped up by the largest deficit spending outside of wartime and the great depression. Go and check that fact.
Post a Comment