Another week, another fake news story designed to undermine President Trump.
I must say, I admire the New York Times headline: “Trump is said to be planning to accept a luxury 747 from Qatar for use as Air Force One.” You see, “Trump” isn’t getting a 747 from the Middle Eastern Arab nation at all. The United States is. But, see, “Trump” is said to be getting the gift by Democrats and slimy journalists, so that’s the news. But people lying about what the President does isn’t news, it’s SOP, so why would this be worth a story? In fact, the headline only tells us someone or someones are saying that Trump is planning to accept the gift. That’s another one of my favorite kinds of fake news: psychic fake news, with the sources being unknown “sayers.”
ABC’s Jonathan Karl tweeted out a perfect example of how the news media distorts the news by manipulating the context. He tweeted yesterday,
“ABC EXCLUSIVE: President Trump is poised to accept a luxury jet as a gift from Qatar. It’s to be used as Air Force One and then transferred to the Trump library by January 2029. Perhaps the biggest foreign gift ever. DOJ insists it’s legal, not bribery, not violation of emoluments clause.”
Let’s see: the President will be accepting the jet on behalf of the nation, as Presidents do. The DOJ doesn’t have to “insist” that it’s not bribery, not illegal and not a violation of the [dead, inapplicable and never enforced] Emoluments Clause, because gifts to the U.S. are not personal gifts to the President, are legal, are not bribery, and the Emoluments Clause, one of the Axis’s Big Lie impeachment theories [Plan C], “has nothing to do with the price of beans,” as my father liked to say. Article I, Section 9, Paragraph 8 of the Constitution prohibits federal officeholders from receiving any gift, payment, or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers, officers, or representatives without Congressional approval. Again, Trump personally isn’t being given anything.
As for the eventual transfer of the plane to the Trump Presidential Library, which doesn’t exist yet, that the variety of fake news I call “future news.” That’s four years from now. Maybe it’s just talk (see New York Times headline above). Maybe it won’t happen. Maybe Congress will object. Do ex-Presidents personally own what is given to their libraries? The libraries are separate legal entities and non-profits: I don’t think so. Nonetheless, Karl’s tweet was designed to make the gift from Qatar look shady, and it isn’t.
The current Air Force One and Two planes are about 35 years old, rolling out in 1990, during the Bush I administration. (In his Truth Social post, Trump said they were 40 years old, a typical bit of exaggeration that I’m sure guarantees that message will be a new addition to the Washington Post’s “Trump Lie Database.”) The replacement planes were commissioned during his first term, then Boeing representatives announced that the company wouldn’t be able to deliver the new planes until around 2035, because, as we all know, Boeing is a mess. That delay was and is unacceptable—old planes tend to start falling apart—so as reported by the Wall Street Journal, “the U.S. government has commissioned L3Harris LHX to overhaul a Boeing 747 formerly used by the Qatari government. The Melbourne, Fla.-based company is tasked with retrofitting the plane with certain specialized systems to transform the luxury aircraft into a presidential jet…”
The Horror.
While trying to turn a reasonable, cost-saving measure by the Trump Administration into some kind of a Presidential scandal (because the rotting Democratic Party desperately needs one), the news media also is failing to report a real scandal: that with the safety of the President at risk, Boeing can’t deliver on a critical government contract.
Based on that company’s recent track record with its product, I would humbly suggest that the government find another aircraft manufacturer whose planes don’t fall out of the sky.
Ethics Alarms 
I think the unstated but underlying objection our betters have to this deal is they consider the Qatari 747’s oil wealth funded opulence tacky and unpresidential. Besides lying all the time, Trump’s mortal sin is he’s gauche. God forbid the president of the United States would be flying around in a plane that has gold faucets.
ABC: “What do you say to people who view that luxury jet as a personal gift to you?”
POTUS: “You’re ABC Fake News right?… You should be embarrassed asking that question. They’re giving us a free jet. I could say no… I want to pay you $1B… Or I could say thank you.”
For once, my answer would be less civil or presidential than Trump’s: “I would say, “Bite me.” They can “view” it as a rutabaga for all that I care.”
Will it be an ethical problem if it goes to the library after Trump’s term? Stating that intention makes it less of a gift to the US government.
That does seem contrary to the utility of accepting it in the first place. Putting it there when it’s eventually retired would make more sense.
Well, it depends. Presidential libraries are museums and non-profits. If the plane is no longer operable and won’t fly, it’s only valuable as scrap, or as an exhibit. If it doesn’t belong to Trump personally, its not an ethical issue at all. But as I wrote, it’s four years away, and whatever it is, it’s not ethical or unethical until something happens. It is definitely not unethical for the US to accept a plane as a gift from a foreign country.
I’m trying to figure out what factors matter here. Is it ok for other countries make large donations to a president’s library or charitable foundation? That doesn’t seem separated enough from just giving something of value to the person.
Bringing his non-profit into the plan tells me that everyone is interpreting this as a gift to Trump for his use, not for future administrations and the DoD to own and use.
I’m so used to hearing about ambassador gifts being token cultural items like a book or work of art. Should I be thinking of this plan as in that category even though it is a different degree of value?
“charitable foundation?”
That was the Clinton Foundation trick. Oddly, the mainstream media seem to have no trouble with it.
Would love to hear your response to Amy and approve my comments for a response.
Chris
Approval granted. Sorry it took so long, Chris. Busy evening.
The question isn’t whether it’s technically legal or whether media has been fair to all. My question is whether it could be unethical to accept gifts like this, and if so what are the criteria we should use to judge gifts – ethics-wise not legal rules.
The media was wrong for not being more skeptical and questioning of prior gifts to the Clinton Foundation while they were in office. How is this situation different? (genuine question, trying to work out in my mind how we are supposed to judge the appropriateness of major gifts that could influence someone in office).
The situation is different because 1) the plane can’t possibly enrich Trump personally. The Clinton Foundation paid for Clinton family travel and networking opportunities, and the gifts were influence peddling pay-offs. 2) It saves the taxpayer’s money. 3) Is it a way for Qatar to suck up and hope it buys some good will? Sure. That’s how the fame is played. France expected good will from the Statue of Liberty gift, too.
It is unethical to accept a gift that will be considered a commitment to a quid pro quo. When the Godfather says he’ll do you a favor, watch out. But if countries give gifts simply hoping that they will buy good will but it’s just a hope, there is no “meeting of the minds,” and the U.S.isn’t committing to anything. In the case of the Clinton Foundation, the Clintons knew that if they didn’t deliver a quo for the quid, the money would dry up…. as it did as soon as Hillary had no chance of wielding power and influence.
Thanks for the continued replies. I think I will go back and read the old Clinton Foundation posts to see if that helps clarify my thinking on this, since you already put a lot of work into those.
I used to read the blog regularly back in college, and now that you mention it I bet that series of posts were actually why you popped back into my mind when I was hearing coverage on this story.
I hope so! I have given the ethics session for the national conference of non-profit counsel fr over 25 years now, and I tried to flag the Clinton Foundation corruption repeatedly. (Why did you stop reading EA regularly?)
I actually found you back when it was the still the scoreboard website. Definitely gave me some foundational ways of thinking through issues that I know I still use.
To be candid, I started fading out of regular readership when the ‘birds gotta fly’ approach to Trump started, and you stopped analyzing a lot of ethics issues he presented because that’s just the way he is. That turned into an emphasis on posts about people having overreactions and opinions, and a decline of posts analyzing ethics of people in power.
Obviously an oversimplified recollection of what I was thinking 10ish years ago, but there you go.
I’ll say I still have thoughts like ‘competence is an ethical virtue!’ plus I have watched a few Danny Kaye movies that I’ll credit you for.
That last part alone means that I haven’t lived my life in vain. Thank you. I’m ready for my “dirt nap,” as Steve-O so eloquently puts it.
Thoughts on violations of public trusts and transparency. Like appearance of impropriety? Have you heard Ben Shapiro’s take? Is it unethical to take a gift from a country who supports Hamas?
1) The President isn’t subject to AOI rules because of the complex and all-encompassing nature of the job. 2) All of the Arab and Muslim nations would like Israel to disappear. 3) In general, unless money was raised through criminal activity, I don’t believe in “dirty money,” so I certainly don’t believe in “dirty jets.”
The Obama Presidential Library, for one example, does not accept foreign donations, but the Barack Obama Foundation, which supports the library, does accept them. And the library could accept foreign donations. Neither the library nor the foundation are Barack. Legally, that’s a clear distinction. It’s why Bill Clinton wasn’t indictable for bribery when he pardoned fugitive Marc Rich and then Rich’s ex-wife made a huge gift to Bill’s library.
At this point, I haven’t seen the exact terms of the gift.
Let’s not forget to include the cost of all the upgrades that will have to be made to this civilian aircraft to make it Air Force One. All the communications gear, the anti-missle systems, upgraded avionics and who knows what else. I’m sure all that work and equipment will equal or exceed 400 million dollars.
I don’t trust Qatar.
But if the plane is being retrofitted by a florida company then its a job builder, thus good for th economy
I don’t trust any one or anything missing a “u.” There IS a “you” in “trust.”
Jack, next you’re going to tell me you won’t allow “QAID” in Scrabble, even though it is in the Scrabble Player’s dictionary…
I allow it, but I don’t like it….
If it’s a gift to the country, it should remain as Air Force One even after 47 leaves office, if he ever actually does. If it is unusable after only 4 years, one would have to ask, “What the hell did they do to it?”
I think that’s a valid point, although the Qatar jet as I understand it is not new, just newer than the 35 year old planes it will be replacing. So it’s a stopgap, thanks to Boeing sucking. Again, the status of the jet in 2028 is unknown. Ted Kennedy would say, “We’ll cross that bridge when we come to it…”
Besides, if a Democrat is elected President in 2028, I expect he’ll flatly refuse to use the same aircraft that TRUMP!!! did. So off to the library it’ll go!
–Dwayne