Why Qatar Is So Excited to Dump That Private Jet on Trump

The Qatari government used Trump to pawn off a hunking chunk of metal that it had been trying to get rid of for five years, according to reporting from Forbes.

The president—easily swayed by gifts—likely just saved this foreign government thousands if not millions of dollars in storage fees and maintenance by accepting the “palace in the sky,” a super-luxury Boeing 747 that the Qatari government has been trying to sell since 2020. Trump intends to use it as a “temporary Air Force One.”

“Qatar, like many modern states, is shifting toward leaner, more versatile aircraft, which offer better economics and more discreet presence for official travel,” said Linus Bauer, a managing director of aviation consulting firm BAA & Partners. Qatar’s decision to give the plane to Trump is “a creative disposal strategy” and “a farewell to a bygone model of geopolitical theater in the skies.”

This plane, of which the Qatari government owns three, has been phased out of air fleets across the world for the last decade due to its unreasonable gas guzzling and the security risk that its ginormous size presents.

“These things are big targets,” said aerospace consultant Richard Aboulafia. “There are a lot more airports you can get into if you have a narrow body, and many more still if you have a traditional business jet.”

The temporary jet will need to be disassembled and searched for bugs before it is reinforced to the level Air Force One is required to be. Former Air Force acquisitions chief Andrew Hunter estimated it could cost tens of millions to do a full security sweep of the plane.

“I can’t imagine any well-trained senior Air Force officer saying this is a good idea,” Aboulafia said.

The Trump administration’s blatant disregard for court orders is not winning it any favor with the Supreme Court.

Justice Elena Kagan called out the government’s attorneys Thursday, flaming Justice Department officials for being “dead wrong,” while asking the administration to explain why they would bring a case they had uniformly lost in lower courts to the nation’s highest judiciary.

“Why would you take the substantive question to us? You’re losing a bunch of cases,” Kagan said, referring to the government’s emergency application to proceed with its attempts to ban birthright citizenship. “Why would you ever take this case to us?”

“Well in this particular case we deliberately have not presented the merits to this particular court on the scope of remedies, because of course that makes it a clean vehicle where the court doesn’t have to look at—” started U.S. Solicitor General D. John Sauer.

“You are ignoring the import of my question,” Kagan interrupted. “I’m suggesting that, in a case in which the government is losing constantly, and nobody else is going to appeal, it’s up to you to decide whether to take this case to us. If I were in your shoes, there’s no way I’d approach the Supreme Court with this case.

“So you just keep on losing in the lower courts, and what’s supposed to happen to prevent that?” she continued.

“We have an adversarial system,” Sauer said, claiming that another circuit court could take the case.

But Kagan appeared offended by the idea, noting that nobody opposing the administration is going to lose this case—so long as they can afford to bring the case at all.

“You need somebody to lose, but nobody is going to lose in this case. You’re going to have individual by individual by individual, and all those individuals are going to win, and the ones who can’t afford to go to court, they’re the ones who are going to lose,” Kagan said. “This is not a hypothetical. This is happening out there, right? Every court has ruled against you.”

Birthright citizenship is baked into the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees citizenship to everyone born or naturalized on U.S. soil. Donald Trump attempted to end the constitutionally enshrined right, mere hours after he was sworn in, by claiming that children born to immigrants on temporary visas or who are in the country illegally should not be entitled to birthright status. Trump’s unconstitutional order has since been blocked by multiple judges in multiple court circuits.

The Justice Department’s case is an effort by the administration to curb their lower court rulings, hoping to stymy their losses on birthright cases by winning a ruling that judges can only block orders related specifically to the people or areas involved.

Kagan further pressed the government to explain—in a “hypothetical” situation, in which it issued an illegal executive order—how the court system could stop it. Sauer suggested that a class action could be certified in the case, though Kagan rebutted that the government would argue there is no appropriate class to certify under the federal rules of civil procedure. Sauer agreed.

As another option, Sauer suggested that the government would have every individual affected sue the action, drawing the shock of the court.

Sauer’s arguments drew contempt from justices on both ideological sides of the court—even the ones appointed by Trump himself. Justice Brett Kavanaugh pressed Sauer into a corner, forcing the solicitor general to admit that the Trump administration doesn’t even know how it would enforce its birthright citizenship order.

The solicitor general also threw Justice Amy Coney Barrett into disbelief as Sauer argued that Trump has the “right” to disregard legal opinions that he doesn’t personally agree with.

“Did I understand you correctly that the government reserved its right to not follow a Second Circuit precedent, say, in New York, because you might disagree with the opinion?” asked Barrett.

“Our general practice is to respect those precedents, but there are circumstances when it is not a categorical practice,” Sauer said.

“This administration’s practice? Or the long-standing practice of the federal government? And I’m not talking about in the Fourth Circuit. Are you going to respect—I’m talking about within the Second Circuit, and can you say that it’s this administration’s practice or long-standing?” Barrett said.

“As I understand it, long-standing practice at the Department of Justice,” Sauer said, eliciting surprise from the conservative justice.

“Really?” asked Barrett.

The U.S. State Department is interfering with foreign countries on behalf of Elon Musk’s satellite internet business, according to a sweeping report published Thursday by ProPublica.

State Department officials both in Washington and in Gambia have been aggressively pushing for the West African country to approve a license for Starlink, which is owned and operated by SpaceX, of which Musk owns a $150 billion stake.

In one February meeting between Sharon Cromer, the ambassador from the United States to Gambia, and Lamin Jabbi, the Gambian minister of communications and digital economy, the American diplomat reportedly pressured the Cabinet member to approve the use of Starlink.

Hassan Jallow, Jabbi’s top deputy, told ProPublica that Cromer issued a thinly veiled threat by stressing the many ways that the U.S. has been financially supporting Gambia. “The implication was that they were connected,” Jallow told the outlet.

In mid-March, Jabbi and Jallow traveled to Washington to attend the World Bank summit and were subjected to a meeting organized by the State Department that quickly turned contentious. The meeting was with Ben MacWilliams, a former U.S. diplomat now in charge of Starlink’s expansion efforts in Africa, who accused Jabbi of kneecapping the country’s development, according to Jallow and four others who attended the meeting.

When the conversation ended without Jabbi acquiescing, his following meeting with U.S. government officials at the State Department headquarters was canceled. Starlink told Jabbi that “there was no more need” for a meeting, Jallow recounted to ProPublica.

It was then that Cromer sent an “important request” about approving Starlink over Jabbi’s head and straight to Gambian President Addama Barrow. She urged him to go around his communications minister to “facilitate the necessary approvals for Starlink to commence operations.”

While the U.S. state officials had previously worked with Starlink during the Biden administration, efforts have only intensified since Donald Trump entered the White House, bringing Musk along with him. Starlink has fiercely sought to expand its market in Africa, already getting five new African countries to approve licenses, setting the total at 15.

Musk’s apparent leverage within the Trump administration may play a hefty role in negotiations, particularly after the State Department was reportedly planning to close many of its embassies throughout the region—including the one in Gambia.

A spokesperson for the State Department released a statement responding to the report. “Starlink is an America-made product that has been a game changer in helping remote areas around the world gain internet connectivity. Any patriotic American should want to see an American company’s success on the global stage, especially over compromised Chinese competitors,” the statement said.

Musk is clearly using his proximity to the Trump administration to boost his many businesses. While attending an investors’ conference in Saudi Arabia with Trump Tuesday, Musk announced that the Gulf nation had also approved the use of Starlink. While chatting with the Saudi communications minister, Musk and Trump managed to plug every single one of the former’s businesses.

The State Department is only the latest federal agency to potentially help Musk enrich himself. Democratic lawmakers have also accused Trump’s Department of Commerce of going to great lengths to line the billionaire’s pockets by, among other things, begging Americans to buy Tesla stock.

It looks like Russian President Vladimir Putin isn’t traveling to Istanbul for talks with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, dashing Donald Trump’s hopes.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov poured cold water on the idea Thursday, calling Zelenskiy “pathetic.” Lavrov isn’t attending the meetings in Turkey either, with only lower-level Russian officials making the trip.

“On the meetings in Istanbul, I conclude by what I started with. At first Zelenskiy made some statements that he is demanding for Putin to arrive in person. Well, [Zelenskiy’s] a pathetic person. For everyone, it is clear, except maybe him and those who puppet him,” Lavrov said.

“Then, his high-ranking colleagues explained to him that he doesn’t have to act so stupid and that the talks are needed,” Lavrov added.

Zelenskiy has said that he will not meet with any Russian official except Putin, and is sending Ukraine’s defense minister to the talks. Trump has said that “nothing is going to happen until” he personally meets with Putin, and said Thursday, “If something happened, I’d go on Friday if it was appropriate.”

The prospects for a peaceful resolution in the Ukraine-Russia war are seemingly stagnant at the moment, making Trump’s campaign proclamation that he could solve the crisis on “day one” terribly off. The president has even tried to backtrack and say he was joking.

Trump has tried and failed to explain away his failure to get Putin to negotiate, and that hasn’t been helped by his administration’s clear disdain for Zelenskiy, exceeded only by Putin’s. It’s highly likely that the weekend will pass without any positive developments, barring any crazy development.

MAGA Republican Representatives Marjorie Taylor Greene and Mike Lawler are trading verbal jabs over a funding disagreement on Trump’s “big, beautiful” spending bill.

This began when Lawler, along with four other House Republicans, came out against the bill for setting a $30,000 cap on the state and local tax (SALT) deduction. This quickly set off the perpetually charged Taylor Greene.

“Mike Lawler usually isn’t the guy in the conference with the best ideas, after all we lost a Republican held seat to a Democrat the last time Republicans voted for one of his ‘great’ [strategies],” Taylor Greene wrote. “Now Mike Lawler is a NO on Trump’s big beautiful bill because he won’t accept a SALT cap increase from $10K to $30K per year.

“With the median income of $118,882 in Lawler’s district the SALT cap of $30,000 should be an easy YES for Mike Lawler. The rest of America doesn’t want to and shouldn’t have to make up the difference!!!!!” she continued. “And Mike Lawler has a toss up seat. What’s the point in Republicans fighting to protect and keep re-electing ‘Republicans’ if they constantly undermine the agenda America voted for???”

Lawler hit back.

“Shockingly the ‘Jewish Space Laser’ lady once again doesn’t have a clue what she is talking about,” he replied on X. “By the way, the reason you enjoy a gavel is because Republicans like me have won our seats. Good luck being in the Majority if we don’t.”

“Here is Mike Lawler claiming HE gave us the majority NOT President Donald Trump!!! Did you all vote for Mike Lawler and his agenda???” MTG replied unrelentingly. “Or did America vote for President Trump and his MAGA America First agenda? Tell Mike Lawler what you voted for.”

“MTG ran almost 10 points behind President Trump in one of the most Republican districts. I ran 6.5 points ahead of President Trump in a district won by Kamala Harris,” Lawler replied. “I’m 1 of only 3 Republicans in a district won by Harris. I know math is difficult, but: 220-3=217.”

This internal beef feels like yet another example of the lengths that some Republicans—especially those legislating in deep blue strongholds like Lawler—will or won’t go to for Trump and the hardline MAGA agenda.