16.8 C
London
Wednesday, October 8, 2025

Lawsuit targets Trump’s $400m jet deal, justice dept withholds explosive Qatar memo

Watchdog sues DOJ for withholding memo that authorised Trump’s acceptance of $400m jet from Qatar.

The US Department of Justice is being dragged into federal court over its refusal to release a legal memo that allegedly gave the green light for President Donald Trump to accept a jaw-dropping $400 million luxury aircraft from Qatar. The Freedom of the Press Foundation, represented by the watchdog group American Oversight, filed the lawsuit in a Washington, DC, district court, citing the Department’s failure to deliver the document despite granting expedited processing over two months ago.

The document in question is said to justify the president’s acceptance of a Boeing 747-8 aircraft—dubbed by critics as a “palace in the sky”—a foreign gift that has fuelled weeks of bipartisan outrage and fresh concerns about constitutional violations and national security risks.

“This is precisely the kind of corrupt arrangement that public records laws are designed to expose,” said Chioma Chukwu, executive director of American Oversight. “A $400 million jet handed to a sitting president by a foreign government deserves full public scrutiny—not bureaucratic stonewalling.”

The jet, completed and delivered in May, is reportedly undergoing retrofitting to serve as a temporary replacement for Air Force One before ultimately being transferred to Trump’s private presidential library foundation after his term ends. Experts warn that converting the 13-year-old commercial aircraft could cost taxpayers well over $1 billion and may not even be completed before Trump leaves office.

Embed from Getty Images

The memo at the centre of the lawsuit was reportedly signed by Attorney General Pam Bondi in May, who previously worked as a registered lobbyist for Qatar. Bondi’s prior ties to the Gulf state, labelled a “major non-NATO ally” by the Biden administration in 2022, have only intensified scrutiny. Her conclusion in the memo that accepting the aircraft was “legally permissible” paved the way for the White House to accept the gift just days later.

Critics from both major parties have blasted the deal. Republican Senator Ted Cruz raised alarm over potential espionage threats, calling the aircraft “a significant surveillance risk.” Fellow Republican Shelley Moore Capito quipped she’d “be checking for bugs.” Even former UN ambassador Nikki Haley warned that accepting valuable foreign gifts “threatens intelligence and national security.”

On the Democratic side, Representative Ritchie Torres called the arrangement a “flying grift” that blatantly violates the Constitution’s emoluments clause, which prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts from foreign states without congressional approval.

The Freedom of the Press Foundation originally filed its Freedom of Information Act request on 15 May. Although the DOJ granted expedited processing, the agency estimated it would take more than 600 days to respond—a delay watchdogs call unacceptable.

“It shouldn’t take 620 days to release a single, time-sensitive document,” said Lauren Harper, chair on government secrecy at the Foundation. “The government’s inability to administer FOIA makes it too easy for agencies to keep secrets.”

Adding fuel to the fire is the timing of the jet deal, which closely followed the Trump Organisation’s agreement with Qatari state-owned firms to build a luxury resort and golf course near Doha. The overlap has raised concerns about whether Qatar initiated the gift or was approached by Trump’s team with expectations.

As pressure mounts and no documents have been released, calls for transparency are growing louder. Ethics experts and lawmakers alike insist the public has a right to see the legal reasoning that allowed such an extraordinary and potentially unconstitutional gift to be accepted by the sitting president.

The Department of Justice has so far remained silent, offering no comment and no updated timeline for releasing the controversial memo. For now, the lawsuit stands as a high-profile challenge to a secretive decision with billion-dollar implications—and potential constitutional fallout.

Latest news
Related news