SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
abc news
Trump Plan to Accept Lux Plane From Qatar Condemned as 'Comically Corrupt'
"This is spectacularly corrupt, a level of greed and depravity that is breathtaking, even for Trump."
May 11, 2025
U.S. President Donald Trump—no stranger to allegations of blatant corruption—faced an onslaught of criticism on Sunday in response to ABC News reporting that his administration is preparing to accept "what may be the most valuable gift ever extended to the United States from a foreign government."
Ahead of Trump's trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates, sources told ABC that the administration "is preparing to accept a super luxury Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet from the royal family of Qatar—a gift that is to be available for use by... Trump as the new Air Force One until shortly before he leaves office, at which time ownership of the plane will be transferred to the Trump presidential library foundation."
The unnamed sources also explained that "lawyers for the White House counsel's office and the Department of Justice drafted an analysis for Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth concluding that is legal for the Department of Defense to accept the aircraft as a gift and later turn it over to the Trump library, and that it does not violate laws against bribery or the Constitution's prohibition (the emoluments clause) of any U.S. government official accepting gifts 'from any king, prince, or foreign state.'"
"Even in a presidency defined by grift, this move is shocking. It makes clear that U.S. foreign policy under Donald Trump is up for sale."
ABC's revelations about the $400 million "flying palace" follow The Wall Street Journal reporting earlier this month that "the U.S. government has commissioned L3Harris to overhaul a Boeing 747 formerly used by the Qatari government... into a presidential jet."
The White House, Boeing, and L3Harris declined to comment on the Journal's report. Similarly, on Sunday, the White House, Justice Department, and a spokesperson for the Qatari Embassy did not respond to ABC's inquiries.
However, as The Associated Press reported Sunday:
Hours after the news, Ali Al-Ansari, Qatar's media attaché, in a statement said, "Reports that a jet is being gifted by Qatar to the United States government during the upcoming visit of President Trump are inaccurate."
"The possible transfer of an aircraft for temporary use as Air Force One is currently under consideration between Qatar's Ministry of Defense and the U.S. Department of Defense," the statement said. "But the matter remains under review by the respective legal departments, and no decision has been made."
Amid the uncertainty, a range of people across the internet blasted the supposed plan, slamming it as "indefensible," "incredibly illegal," and "comically corrupt." Some critics pointed out that the reporting comes after the Trump Organization, the Saudi partner DarGlobal, and a company owned by the Qatari government last month reached a deal to build a luxury golf resort in Qatar.
Journalist Mike Rothschild said that "this is spectacularly corrupt, a level of greed and depravity that is breathtaking, even for Trump. Air Force One—the people's plane—is going to be a flying palace donated by Qatar. No American should accept this."
Some critics highlighted security concerns. One legal expert declared, "An emolument and security risk all wrapped up in one!"
Robert Weissman, co-president of the watchdog group Public Citizen, said in a statement that "Trump's plan to accept a luxury plane from Qatar is blatantly unconstitutional, a textbook violation of the emoluments clause. The concern with foreign gifts is that they can sway a president's policy and predilections—and there's little doubt that Qatar wants to gift Trump a 'palace in the sky' for exactly that reason."
Weissman continued:
"The legal counsel who advised that this gift is OK because Trump will take personal control of it (through his library) only after leaving office should resign immediately, in shame and disgrace. The situation is no different than if the Qataris gave $400 million in cash to Trump and told him to keep it under his bed until 2029, when he could spend it freely. Except possibly it's worse, because he will use the plane in the interim, at great cost to the U.S. taxpayer, who will have to upgrade it.
Even in a presidency defined by grift, this move is shocking. It makes clear that U.S. foreign policy under Donald Trump is up for sale. The juxtaposition with cancelled foreign aid grants and programs for poor and vulnerable people—cancellations that will cost millions of lives unless reversed—could not be starker or more morally grotesque.
"Is taking a gift from a foreign government this big a bribe or bad judgment? Or just Trump?" Congressman Mark Pocan (D-Wis.) asked on social media. "Wish the MAGA movement cared about ethics in their president."
Congressman Brendan Boyle (D-Pa.) said: "The level of corruption from President Trump and his White House is unlike anything we have ever seen in American history. It is appalling and criminal. Openly taking bribes."
Congressional Progressive Caucus Chair Greg Casar (D-Texas) noted that the reporting comes amid issues at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).
"While ordinary Americans' flights are grounded because of problems at the FAA, Trump is taking a $400 million bribe in the form of a 'palace in the sky' from a foreign government," Casar said. "Over and over: He gets paid. Everyone else gets screwed."
This article has been updated with comment from Ali Al-Ansari, Qatar's media attaché.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Sanders Urges 'Independent Press That Reports the Truth Without Fear' of Trump Retribution
"If major media outlets succumb to intimidation from the Trump administration, the First Amendment is in serious danger."
Feb 03, 2025
Independent U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders of Vermont on Monday took aim at both President Donald Trump's attempts at "suing the media into submission" and news outlets' willingness to settle such cases and self-censor as "incredibly dangerous" precedents.
In a video posted on social media, Sanders highlighted that CBS News parent company Paramount is in talks with Trump's lawyers to possibly settle a $10 billion lawsuit filed by the president just days before the 2024 election accusing "60 Minutes" of deceptively editing an interview with Vice President Kamala Harris, the Democratic nominee.
Sanders also noted how ABC News agreed last year to pay a $15 million settlement that included a letter of regret after veteran anchor and political commentator George Stephanopoulos said Trump had been found "liable for rape" of writer E. Jean Carroll. A federal jury in Manhattan found Trump civilly liable for sexual abuse and defamation of Carroll, but not rape—even though Caroll testified in graphic detail that Trump raped her in a department store dressing room in the 1990s.
"I regard that as an incredibly dangerous precedent, both of those, ABC and CBS," Sanders said in the video, denouncing "major media outlets succumbing to pressure from the Trump administration."
"People have a right to express their own point of view," Sanders asserted. "Yeah, networks are wrong all of the time. They're wrong about me, wrong about Trump. But if you use the power of government to intimidate networks, they're not going to do the big stories. They're not going to do the investigations. Why should they go out on a limb and tell you something if they're afraid about being sued by the Trump administration?"
The video also notes Trump's lawsuit against pollster J. Ann Selzer, her polling firm Selzer & Company, The Des Moines Register, and the Iowa newspaper's parent company, Gannett, alleging fraud and "brazen election interference" over a November 2 poll showing Harris beating Trump by 3 points in the 2024 election. Trump won Iowa by 13 points.
"If major media outlets succumb to intimidation from the Trump administration, the First Amendment is in serious danger," Sanders stressed. "We need an independent press that reports the truth without fear of retribution."
Major media outlets have also been accused of self-censorship. Jeff Bezos and Patrick Soon-Shiong, the billionaire owners of The Washington Post and Los Angeles Times, respectively, have come under fire for prohibiting or restricting opinion pieces critical of Trump or supportive of his adversaries.
"If you believe The Washington Post's slogan that 'Democracy Dies in Darkness,' their owner was the first to switch off the light," journalist David Helvarg wrote last month for Common Dreams.
The Nation justice correspondent and columnist Elie Mystal wrote last month that "recent events have shown that Trump does not have to impose a new regime of censorship if the press censors itself first."
"And that, I believe, is what we are witnessing now: a press that gives away its First Amendment rights before Trump takes them away," he continued. "A press that will not speak truth to power if power threatens to kick their owners off a cocktail party list or gum up their operations."
"The debasement of the press will continue until readers and viewers reject the media that would rather lie to them than tell the truth to Trump," Mystal added. "The people who run these publications and news organizations are betting that we won't."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Raskin Says Alito Must Recuse After Private Call With Trump
"Alito claims it was to help a former clerk get a job," wrote one legal commentator. "Doesn't matter. Federal law requires Alito now be DISQUALIFIED from the Trump stay petition."
Jan 09, 2025
Following the revelation that Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito had a private phone call with Trump the day before Trump's legal team petitioned the Supreme Court to halt his sentencing in his New York "hush money" case, Congressman Jamie Raskin was among those Thursday who called for Alito's recusal from the high profile case.
ABC News first reported the call between Trump and Alito, which took place Tuesday, and that Alito subsequently claimed concerned one of Alito's former law clerks, who is seeking a job in the new administration. "William Levi, one of my former law clerks, asked me to take a call from President-elect Trump regarding his qualifications to serve in a government position," Alito explained to ABC News in a statement.
On Wednesday morning, Trump's legal team filed an emergency request with the Supreme Court to pause his sentencing in New York court on on 34 felony counts of falsifying business records in connection to hush-money payment to porn actress Stormy Daniels.
Alito said that he and Trump did not discuss Trump's emergency request.
Raskin, ranking member of the House Judiciary Committee, denounced the call as a "breach of judicial ethics" in a statement Thursday, adding "especially when paired with his troubling past partisan ideological activity in favor of Trump, Justice Alito's decision to have a personal phone call with President Trump—who obviously has an active and deeply personal matter before the court—makes clear that he fundamentally misunderstands the basic requirements of judicial ethics or, more likely, believes himself to be above judicial ethics altogether."
Trump's legal team also appealed to the New York Court of Appeals to postpone the sentencing, which was rejected Thursday, a day after a state appeals court in New York also rejected the request. The sentencing is slated to take place on Friday.
Other court watchers also blasted Alito for the phone call.
President of the watchdog Accountable.US Caroline Ciccone urged Alito to recuse himself from all upcoming cases in which Trump is a named party. "In addition, Congress should investigate Alito's—and other justices'—lapses in judicial ethics in order to strengthen the Court's lax code of conduct. Anything less would confirm what so many already fear: that the Court has become overtly political and a playground for the powerful," she wrote.
"Alito claims it was to help a former clerk get a job. Doesn't matter. Federal law requires Alito now be DISQUALIFIED from the Trump stay petition," wrote Tristan Snell, a lawyer and legal commentator, on Wednesday.
This is not the first time that Alito has engendered this type of scrutiny. Last year, following revelations that flags carried by Trump supporters who took part in the January 6 insurrection at the Capitol were seen flying outside Alito's homes, Alito faced calls to recuse himself from a case two cases: one dealing with Trump's claims of presidential immunity and another on the question of whether defendants who participated in the January 6, 2021 attempted insurrection should be charged with obstructing an official proceeding. Alito rejected the calls to step aside.
"Every federal judge and justice knows he or she must avoid situations such as this. Yet Justice Alito did not," said Raskin.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular