Some forms of political influence are easy to recognize and are not illegal or unethical. Politicians receive campaign contributions and,most times, those contributions are properly reported. The person or group making the donation may feel it entitles them to some measure of consideration, and it may encourage that politician’s favorable consideration, but it’s not illegal. Lobbyists regularly press politicians to vote in favor of their particular agenda. But that is the way the politics game is played.
But accepting a luxury jet worth millions of dollars, rescinding tariffs on a country because they’ve ingratiated themselves in some way, or awarding a federal contract to a business with ties to the president is another thing altogether. It doesn’t pass the smell test. These occurrences look very much like corruption and pay-to-play.
In each case, we must ask the same question: who benefited, what did they receive, and what relationship did they have with the people closest to the president?
A foreign gift, a tariff exemption, or a Pentagon contract can be worth far more than a conventional campaign donation. And unlike a donation, those benefits can come directly from—or be controlled by—the machine that is the federal government.
Photo Credit: CNN
The Qatari Jumbo Jet
It’s no secret that Donald Trump likes luxuriously opulent, shiny gold things. Is it any wonder then, that he would accept a pimped-out jumbo jet as a gift? In May 2025, his administration accepted a Boeing 747 jet from Qatar to be used as Air Force One. The plane is reportedly valued at $400 million dollars.
After criticism exploded, the administration argued that it was not a personal gift, but rather a government-to-government transfer and that the jet will be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation upon his leaving office. I don’t know about you, but I am very skeptical. I think we could likely see Donald Trump jetting off to his golf course in Ireland in that very same jet after 2028.
Qatar had a similar explanation: it was an official gift to the United States. Legally, that distinction is relevant, but experts question whether the arrangement complies with laws and constitutional safeguards intended as a bulwark against foreign influence and corruption. The arrangement violates the natural reading of the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which bars officeholdersfrom receiving gifts or emoluments from foreign governments without congressional consent.
At the time of the announcement, Republican supporters argued that accepting the gift was fiscally responsible. Critics pointed out that retrofitting a foreign jet for use by the president posed security risks. and created communication, maintenance, and cost issues. Indeed, the critics’ warnings materialized into real issues as the Secret Service ordered a mid-trip swap in July 2026 while Trump was in Turkey.
Because the Qatari jet had been rushed into service and because it lacked the missile defense systems, anti-jamming communicationscapabilities, and mid-air refueling capabilities of the legacy jets, safety concerns prompted them to send the Qatari jet back to the U.S. due to rising tensions with Iran. Of course, the swap was hidden from the White House press pool and the public as Trump was clandestinely shuttled to the legacy Air Force One via a catering truck.
Some rightly pointed out that he left the press pool and administrative personnel in a precarious position. I mean, what if Iran or some other hostile actor decided to attack Qatar’s “gift”? All aboard could have been sacrificed for no good reason. The current Air Force One jets are equipped with protective measures to mitigate an attack.
Aside from the safety issue, Qatar, or any other foreign government for that matter, would not make such an expensive gesture withoutknowing the political significance of such an act. The President of the United States makes decisions that affect a country’s security, diplomatic standing, economic status and military posture. That region of the world is very volatile. What will Qatar expect in return for the gift? What have they gotten, if anything? These are the questions that need answers, and we can trust this administration to dodge and obfuscate.
Photo Credit: The Edge
Tariffs: Public Policy as Currency
Trump’s sweeping tariffs have been the subject of much criticism as Americans have contended with the fallout: higher prices. He keeps telling the same lie over an over: that the tariffs have put so much money into the treasury. Yes, the U.S has collected lots of money from imported goods since Trump instituted his tariff regime. But ultimately, it is you and I who have added to the coffers of the U.S. Treasury because the consumer is the one who pays higher prices caused by tariffs. Trump and his mouthpieces have tried to gaslight, but the American people know better. We know what we are experiencing, and polling reflects how fed-up voters have become.
To be clear, a tariff is a tax imposed by the government on imported goods from other countries. They are collected at ports of entry by customs officials and are paid by the domestic importer, who then passes that cost to the us, the consumer. The primary purpose of a tariff is to protect domestic industries from foreign competition.
In February of 2025, upon his return to the White House, Trump imposed a 25% tariff on Canada and Mexico and a 10% Tariff on China. Then in April, he announced a 10% global tariff and raised tariffs to 50% on dozens of individual nations. While presidents do have the power to levy tariffs in specific situations, the power to tax lies with Congress as outlined in Article I, section 8 of our constitution.Recalling his campaign promise of lowering the cost of living for Americans: I’d say he gets a big fat “F”.
As for tariff concessions, there’s nothing illegal about granting one. What would make a concession unethical, or illegal is if the country receiving the tariff reduction or relief is simultaneously cultivating business relationships with the president or his family and the official act of granting the concession garnered a private benefit.
Congress should investigate whether our government reduced or rescinded tariffs to countries that then struck deals with the president or his family. There is a strong laissez faire posture regarding Trump’s activities as president that never would have passed muster for any other president. What if Barack Obama’s family had a deal in the works with his father’s home country of Kenya? What if he then eliminated tariffs on goods from that country? I’ll bet there would’ve been impeachment hearings at break-neck speed. The double standard perpetuated by Republicans is nauseating.
Photo credit: ABC
Defense Contracts and the Trump Connection
When it comes to defense contracts, the stakes rise because these are funded by taxpayer dollars, have national security implications, and involve some of the federal government’s largest procurement decisions.
No one is denying a president’s family member the right to a career or to invest in a company that may pursue government contracts. Buta company’s connection to the president’s family changes its access, credibility, financing, regulatory treatment, and likelihood of receiving a federal contract.
Democrats in Congress have sought investigations into Defense Department contracts and financing connected to Donald Trump, Jr., who joined the venture-capital firm, 1789 Capital after the 2024 election. The lawmakers allege Defense Department contracts were awarded to companies after those companies became associated with Trump’s sons.
Questions to consider:
Which company received the contract?
Was the award competitively bid?
Who were the competing bidders?
Did the company receive a waiver, special classification, or unusual procurement treatment?
When did Trump family members, family investment vehicles, or politically connected allies become involved?
Did the company’s relationship with Trump family members affect its ability to raise money, meet officials, win access, or receive favorable decisions?
CNN reported that 10 defense, space and software companies backed by 1789 Capital received more than $1.6 billion in federal contracts and grants since Trump’s return to the white house.
Even if no contract was awarded to Trump-family adjacent companies or individuals, the appearance of impropriety is a major blemish. A contractor seeking Pentagon money should not be able to use its relationship with the president’s family as a competitive advantage. And a president’s family should not be able to invest in companies whose value may rise because the government they influence becomes their customer.
At this point, why should any American give the Republicans their vote when their actions prove they can only be trusted to do what serves Trump and themselves.