The nation of Qatar has reportedly promised to give President Donald Trump a new deluxe jet for use as Air Force One—but White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt said that it isn’t a quid pro quo situation, as they know not to expect anything in return.

This weekend, ABC News broke the story that Qatar’s royal family is planning to give the Defense Department a Boeing 747-8 jumbo jet. The jet is reportedly so tricked out that it’s been called a “flying palace,” according to ABC News. After Trump leaves office, the ownership of the plane will transfer from the DoD to the Trump presidential library foundation.

Some might see the gift as an attempt by the Qatari government to curry favor with the American president. But on Monday morning, Leavitt denied that the jet would earn the country special privileges.

READ MORE: During Aviation Crisis Trump Is Shopping for Used Luxury Jet to Replace Air Force One

“They know President Trump and they know he only works with the interests of the American public in mind,” told Brian Kilmeade on Fox News, adding saying the Trump administration and DoD had “[committed] ourselves to the utmost transparency and that the gift was fully legal.

KILMEADE: Do you worry that if they Qataris give us something like this that they'll want something in return?

LEAVITT: Absolutely not, because they know President Trump and they know he only works with the interests of the American public in mind pic.twitter.com/WnoBO4Beh3

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) May 12, 2025

Qatar’s gift to Trump has been controversial with many Americans, including some members of Trump’s base. The far-right influencer Laura Loomer—a longtime ally of the president—called the acceptance of the gift “a stain on the admin” in a post to X (formerly Twitter) on Sunday.

Other critics have said the gift violates the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, which requires government officials to reject gifts unless they get explicit approval from Congress. While a president may accept small, token gifts from leaders, a federal law puts a cap on politicians from receiving gifts worth more than $480.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD) said the gift is in clear violation of the emoluments clause, and called on Trump to seek Congress’ approval to take the gift, according to The Hill.

“The Constitution is perfectly clear: no present ‘of any kind whatever’ from a foreign state without Congressional permission,” Raskin said on X. “A gift you use for four years and then deposit in your library is still a gift (and a grift).”

During President Joe Biden’s administration, Trump pushed a conspiracy theory that Biden had offered loan guarantees to Ukraine in exchange for the dismissal of a prosecutor investigating the Burisma energy company. The then-president’s son, Hunter Biden, was a board member of Burisma.

While Trump’s claims were repeatedly debunked, Trump’s first impeachment was over proven reports that Trump blocked a $400 million military aid package to Ukraine—already approved by Congress—in an attempt to get the country to investigate Joe Biden and damage his presidential campaign.

That is not the only time Trump has been accused of making quid pro quo—latin for “this for that”—deals. Earlier this year, comments made by “border czar” Tom Homan on Fox News implied an agreement was made to drop federal charges against New York City Mayor Eric Adams  in exchange for his support.

Much of President Donald Trump’s rhetoric about his on-again/off-again tariff plan is based around the idea that the U.S. is in a trade deficit with many countries around the world. But a deficit isn’t always a bad thing.

On Monday, the White House released a new statement that the U.S. and China had come to an agreement to lower tariffs. Earlier this year, Trump had proposed a 145% tariff against China, and the country retaliated with a proposed 125% tariff on U.S. goods. The new plan sees the tariffs drastically lowered to 30% on imported Chinese goods and 10% on American goods imported into China. The new deal is temporary, lasting 90 days.

“For too long, unfair trade practices and America’s massive trade deficit with China have fueled the offshoring of American jobs and the decline of our manufacturing sector,” the White House said in a statement.

READ MORE: Walz Mocks Trump Not Knowing ‘How a Tariff Works’ as Companies Ready ‘Massive’ Price Hikes

Earlier this year, Trump characterized the United States’ trade deficit with Canada as subsidizing our neighbors to the north. But a trade deficit is just a gap between the amount of goods and services exported and imported to and from a country. For example, the U.S. imports $412.7 billion of goods from Canada while exporting $349.4 billion. While that might look like a $63.3 trade deficit, that doesn’t take into account money coming in the services sector, so our trade deficit with Canada is actually $35.7 billion.

The U.S. has a trade surplus with some countries, too. Brazil buys a lot of energy resources from the U.S., according to the New York Times, but doesn’t sell nearly as many other goods and services back to the states.

The concept of trade deficits and surpluses is wholly neutral—and in fact, a trade deficit can be a good thing.

“America is getting more cheap goods, and in return it is giving foreigners financial assets: dollars issued by the Federal Reserve, bonds from the US government and American corporations, and stocks in newly created firms,” Tarek Alexander Hassan, a professor of economics at Boston University, wrote. “That is, a trade deficit can only arise if foreigners invest more in the US than Americans invest abroad.”

But, of course, sometimes trade deficits can be problematic for a country. If a country has a very large trade deficit for a long time, that can make it more susceptible to the winds of change, according to Jason Furman, who served on the White House Council of Economic Advisors during President Barack Obama’s second term. But, as Furman told NPR, that doesn’t apply to the United States.

Furman also pointed out that while tariffs can be a useful thing, Trump’s tariffs in particular are not.

“Let’s say you wanted to use trade policy to bring manufacturing jobs back. You wouldn’t do what the president just did, which is to put tariffs on all the bananas, mangoes, avocados and coffee coming into the United States. Those just aren’t things that we’re really ever going to make at enormous scale,” he said. “Moreover, the types of things that they do in Vietnam – you know, making clothing, making shoes – that’s not the jobs that we should be aspiring to have in the United States. We don’t want to give up jobs making airplanes in order to have more jobs making shoes.”

Featured image via Reuters

White House Deputy Chief of Staff for Policy Stephen Miller says the White House is “actively” examining suspending habeas corpus, a constitutional protection that supports the right to due process. Critics, including legal experts, reacted strongly, with some noting that this right has only been suspended in the United States four times.

“Well, the Constitution is clear, and that, of course, is the supreme law of the land—that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus can be suspended in a time of invasion,” Miller, the architect of Trump’s child and family separation policy during his first term, told reporters on Friday.

“So I would say that’s an option we’re actively looking at,” Miller declared, before attacking the judicial branch.

“Look, a lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.”

READ MORE: ‘Bystander’ Trump Keeps Saying ‘I Don’t Know’ — Critics Ask ‘Who’s in Charge?’

Habeas corpus is a cornerstone of Western democracies, with roots tracing back to the Magna Carta of 1215, which first established the principle that no person could be imprisoned arbitrarily by the king.

Miller, who has no law degree and is not an attorney, went on to give reporters his understanding of constitutional law.

“So,” Miller concluded, “it’s not just the courts aren’t just at war with the executive branch, the courts are at war with these radical judges, with the legislative branch as well, too,” he opined.

“So all of that will inform the choice of the president ultimately makes, yes.”

Critics blasted the extreme suggestion that President Donald Trump has the authority to suspend habeas corpus—Congress does—and that he would attempt to do so when there is no invasion or rebellion, prerequisites mandated by the Constitution.

“Habeas corpus has been suspended only 4 times,” wrote The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake. 1) Civil War 2) When Congress authorized it to combat Ku Klux Klan vigilantism during Reconstruction 3) In the Philippines during a 1905 insurrection 4) In Hawaii after Pearl Harbor.”

“The President lacks the power to suspend habeas corpus under Article II. That power is exclusive to Congress under Article I,” explained civil rights attorney Patrick Jaicomo.

READ MORE: ‘Barely Literate’: Education Secretary’s ‘Deranged’ Letter Gets Major Red Ink Corrections

“Too bad he never went to law school and doesn’t understand the law,” remarked Professor of Law Joyce Vance, the well-known MSNBC legal analyst and former U.S. Attorney.

“Suspending habeas corpus,” noted The Atlantic’s James Surowiecki, “would suspend the right for everyone, not just for undocumented people. So what Stephen Miller is saying here is that Trump is thinking about asserting the right to throw Americans in prison while giving them no opportunity to use the courts to get out.”

“The U.S. Constitution guarantees due process to everyone within the United States, not just citizens. They’re inventing a fake ‘invasion’ to call for an emergency and give themselves more power,” added political strategist Max Flugrath, Communications Director at Fair Fight Action.

“Don’t even think about it,” remarked U.S. Senator Ed Markey (D-MA).

The well-known attorney George Conway, saying it “can’t be overstated,” called Miller “deeply, deeply disturbed.”

“Suspending habeas corpus. Let that sink in,” commented The Lincoln Project.

Former Democratic National Committee chairman Jaime Harrison described Miller’s threatening remarks as “dictatorial b——.”

Watch the video below or at this link.

Stephen Miller says the White House is looking into suspending habeas corpus, which protects people from unlawful detentions: “A lot of it depends on whether the courts do the right thing or not.” pic.twitter.com/AZLhFy79oZ

— CSPAN (@cspan) May 9, 2025

READ MORE: ‘Total Injustice’: Pope Leo XIV Likely to Weigh in on Trump-Era Policies, Brother Hints