Arabian Post Staff -Dubai
Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth informed the Senate Appropriations Committee on 11 June 2025 that the United States and Qatar have not yet formalised any agreement transferring a Boeing 747‑8 jetliner gifted by the Qatari royal family for potential use as Air Force One. Lawmakers pressing for details were met with repeated deferrals, as Hegseth invoked security and confidentiality concerns.
Senators voiced concern over the lack of transparency surrounding the gift. Senator Jack Reed of Rhode Island demanded insight into contractual terms and timeframe for retrofitting the aircraft to meet presidential standards, only to be told such information was “not for public consumption”. The Pentagon has neither disclosed cost estimates nor identified a specific US contractor for the extensive upgrade work required, including secure communications, defensive capabilities and airworthiness certification.
Despite earlier assurances from Air Force Secretary Troy Meink that retrofitting expenses could remain under USD 400 million, Democrats remain sceptical. Senator Chris Murphy pointed out that past Air Force One modernisation efforts have encountered significant budget escalations, sometimes reaching billions, and questioned the wisdom of funding work on a foreign jet when replacement aircraft are already in production.
Republicans, including Senators Jim Risch and Roger Marshall, defended the deal, asserting that Qatar and the UAE are strong US allies and that the jet donation alleviates procurement delays with Boeing. Secretary Hegseth echoed this view, suggesting that accepting Qatar’s jet could temporarily ease reliance on delayed Boeing‑built VC‑25B aircraft, though he declined to specify projected completion dates or key benchmarks.
Ethical concerns persist across party lines. Opponents argue that accepting a luxury aircraft from a foreign government may trigger Foreign Emoluments Clause issues or at least generate the appearance of impropriety. Qatar, meanwhile, has maintained that the nature of the transaction is under review—possibly a lease or outright purchase rather than a gift—though final details remain unresolved.
The Boeing 747‑8 in question, approximately 13 years old, features lavish interiors and advanced technology, earning it the nickname “palace in the sky.” Converting it to a presidential transport requires secure communications suites, defensive countermeasures, and structural modifications—a process estimated to span years. While Pentagon officials suggest costs may be contained beneath USD 400 million, analysts warn that upgrades for classified systems and nuclear safety could push costs well above one billion dollars.
Beyond the technical and ethical dimensions, questions remain over how accepting Qatar’s jet might affect broader US defence priorities. Some argue that prioritising resources for a foreign-made interim aircraft could detract from funding the delayed VC‑25B programme, which is pivotal to modernising the presidential fleet.
At the same hearing, Hegseth also dismissed calls for transparency, stating that budgetary and negotiating processes must remain classified for national security. This response intensified criticism from Democratic senators, who claim taxpayers deserve clarity on military expenditures and foreign transfers of high-value assets.
Meanwhile, Senate Republicans rejected two resolutions aiming to pause arms sales to Qatar and the UAE, signalling ongoing bipartisan support for the Gulf states despite growing unease over Trump administration’s foreign dealings. Republicans emphasised the strategic importance of maintaining strong defence cooperation, downplaying concerns over the aircraft gift.
The debate is set to continue as the Air Force advances planning and preliminary feasibility studies. Key upcoming moments include formalisation of the memorandum of understanding, selection of retrofit contractors, and disclosure of cost and timeline projections. The outcome will test the administration’s balance between diplomatic expediency, financial responsibility, and institutional transparency.
