Trump's Middle East Trip: Deals and Dilemmas
$2 trillion in investments, Qatar’s plane gift, and geopolitical shifts through the lens of free markets and individual liberty.
As someone who is passionate about free markets and a healthy, active lifestyle, I’m often when I see events that combine economic opportunity with ethical questionability. President Donald Trump’s May 2025 Middle East trip to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates is another example. Securing over $2 trillion in investments, lifting sanctions on Syria, and the recent fabricated uproar of Qatar’s $400 million plane gift to the U.S. Department of Defense, Trump’s tour offers us a case study for libertarians. Let’s look further into this from a perspective that values voluntary exchange, limited government, and individual liberty.
Everyone celebrates voluntary exchange as the ethical means to prosperity and peace. Trump’s Middle East trip delivered immense economic commitments to America: $600 billion from Saudi Arabia, $1.2 trillion from Qatar, and $200 billion from the UAE, totaling approximately $2 trillion. These deals span defense, aviation (including a $96 billion Boeing order for 210 jets from Qatar), artificial intelligence, and energy, promising to create jobs and drive innovation. The focus on commerce over conflict aligns with our belief that trade, not war, fosters global stability.
The lifting of sanctions on Syria, announced in Riyadh, is another win for reducing government barriers. Sanctions often hurt civilians more than governments we have a beef with, and the removal of the sanctions gives Syria’s new government, led by Ahmed al-Sharaa, a chance to rebuild. While Sharaa’s past ties to al-Qaeda raise concerns, we should generally support freeing markets from punitive measures, provided it doesn’t entangle us in foreign conflicts. This move reflects a pragmatic shift toward economic engagement, resonating with our preference for non-intervention.
Yet, ethical optics may demand scrutiny to tarnish the trip's shine. The most glaring is Qatar’s offer of a $400 million luxury Boeing 747, which was used temporarily as Air Force One and later donated to President Trump's presidential library. Critics, including some Republicans, argue this violates the Constitution’s Foreign Emoluments Clause, which bars federal officials from accepting foreign gifts without congressional approval. The optics are troubling: a lavish gift from a foreign government, followed by massive Qatari investments, smells of potential quid pro quo, but this is a gift to the United States government, not Trump personally. Unlike other political leaders, Trump has put this out in the open for scrutiny with full disclosure.
Qatar’s alleged ties to terrorism is troublesome for many Americans to get their head around to why we would accept such a gift. Reports suggest Qatar has funneled over $2 billion to Hamas, a designated terrorist organization. While Qatar has mediated peace talks and hosted Hamas leaders at the US’s request, its financial support for a group engaged in terrorism seems antithetical to America’s goals to end terrorism. Assuming we are abandoning Bush’s failed War on Terrorism, Trump is taking the libertarian approach of using commerce to abate war and terrorism.
Saudi Arabia and the UAE, while strategic partners, both nations have faced criticism for human rights abuses, from suppressing dissent to involvement in Yemen’s conflict. Americans must ask: Can we champion free trade while aligning with regimes that curtail individual freedoms?
One strategy of Trump’s trip is countering China’s Belt and Road Initiative, which has invested $200 billion in the Middle East. By securing Gulf investments, the US strengthens its economic and geopolitical foothold. Global competition spurs efficiency and innovation for Americans, but we must guard against deals driven by political agendas and grift rather than market forces. Government subsidies or preferential treatment distort markets, undermining our free-market principles.
So, where does this leave us? Trump’s Middle East trip has a mix of positives and negatives. The economic wins—$2 trillion in investments and sanctions relief—dovetail with American ideals of free trade and limited government. Yet, the ethical pitfalls—the plane gift, Qatar’s Hamas ties, and alliances with authoritarian regimes—challenge our commitment to transparency, non-aggression, and individual rights.
I see this as a call to balance pragmatism with a bit of principle. We should celebrate trade that brings us prosperity while also demanding accountability to prevent corruption. Deals must be market-driven, not politically motivated, and we must avoid entanglements that compromise our values.
