Introduction
Recent controversy has emerged surrounding Qatar’s gift of a $400 million Boeing 747-8I to the Trump administration for potential use as Air Force One. Among the critics is conservative commentator Ben Shapiro, who called the arrangement “indefensible” and “a bribe,” suggesting it represents “a stain” on the administration.
“I think if we switched the names to Hunter Biden and Joe Biden, we’d all be freaking out on the right,” Shapiro stated on his podcast, connecting the Qatari deal with other reported “influence peddling” concerns. He further emphasized, “President Trump promised to drain the swamp. This is not, in fact, draining the swamp.”
There is no question that President Trump’s accomplishments in freeing Americans, standing up for justice, and his peace accomplishments are quite remarkable achievements — but that does not pertain to this question. This article examines the validity of Shapiro’s claims by analyzing the material differences between the Qatari gift and the current Air Force One, followed by a halachic (Jewish law) perspective on accepting such gifts in positions of leadership.
Breaking Down the Differences: Qatar’s Gift vs. Air Force One
Aircraft Type and Age
Current Air Force One: Military versions of Boeing’s 747-200B (VC-25A), entered service in 1990
Qatar’s Gift: Boeing 747-8i, built in 2012, representing the largest and newest version of the 747 series
Technology and Capabilities
Current Air Force One: Subject to upgrades over time but based on 30+ year old foundation
Qatar’s Gift: Features modern engines, improved fuel efficiency, and likely contains state-of-the-art technology
Cost and Size
Current Air Force One: Originally cost $325 million each, with billions in upgrades over decades; approximately 231 feet long with 7,800-mile range
Qatar’s Gift: Valued at approximately $400 million; around 250 feet in length with an 8,000-mile range
Interior Design and Purpose
Current Air Force One: Customized for command and control with military-grade communications, in-flight refueling capabilities, medical suite and secure conference rooms
Qatar’s Gift: Designed as a luxury aircraft with emphasis on comfort rather than military functions, featuring lounges and dining suites
Ownership and Operation
Current Air Force One: Government-owned and operated by the U.S. Air Force
Qatar’s Gift: Previously ordered by the Qatari royal family, later gifted to Jordan’s King Abdullah II before being offered to the U.S.
The Critical Questions
This controversy raises several important questions:
- Does accepting such a gift constitute a bribe that might influence U.S. policy toward Qatar?
- Does the timing of the gift, coinciding with a $1.2 trillion economic commitment between the U.S. and Qatar (including a significant Boeing order), suggest a quid pro quo arrangement?
- How should we evaluate President Trump’s defense that “We’re giving to everybody else. Why wouldn’t I accept the gift?”
Halachic Perspective
- To analyze this question from a halachic perspective, we must examine three key sources:
- A Gemara Sanhedrin (27a and b)
- A ruling of the Rosh (Sanhedrin Zeh Borer Siman 17)
- And the words of Rabbi Yom Tov Heller in his Pilpula Charifta
The Gemara
The Gemara tells us of a man named Bar Chama who allegedly killed a person. The Raish Galusa said to the dayan, Rav Abba bar Ya’akov: “Go investigate this case, and if he certainly killed him, let the government authorities put his eyes out” (a fine that is extra-legal and not halachic — Rashi). Subsequently two witnesses came and testified that he did kill him. Bar Chama then went and brought two other witnesses, who testified about one of the first witnesses that he stole.
Rav Abba bar Ya’akov said to bar Chama: “Why did you bring these witnesses? What do you hold? Do you side with Rabbi Meir in his dispute with Rabbi Yossi, that one who is guilty of theft is disqualified from testifying in capital cases? Rav Pappi, who was present at the time, then proved that we do rule like Rabbi Meir. Based on this conclusion, Bar Chama was acquitted. Bar Ḥama then arose and kissed Rabbi Pappi on his feet and accepted upon himself to exempt him of his karga (poll) tax for the rest of his life.”
The Rosh
The Rosh (Siman 17) asks, “How is this at all permitted? Isn’t this out and out post-facto bribery?” (see Ramah CM 34:18 that post-facto bribery is forbidden based on this Rosh). He answers that he didn’t give Rav Pappi any monetary compensation; rather, he spoke to the king on his behalf to exempt him from a tax that he was technically exempt from paying anyway (a clergy exemption). Therefore, it is not considered post-facto bribery. Otherwise, it would be forbidden just like paying post-facto interest is forbidden.
The Pilpula Charifta
The Pilpula Charifta (letter Shin) on the Rosh writes: “Come and see the great matter that our Master has taught us! That bribery is forbidden even in matters that are not a Din Torah, but rather are a technical fine, like Rashi explains. And even still our Master (the Rosh) explains that he (Rav Pappi) took it upon himself to take care of the karga tax in a manner that did not involve a bribe. I wrote this to teach that those who have been appointed to the tzibbur (serving the public) —even though their decisions and responsibilities are not Din Torahs and they were not appointed as such— they must be careful not to accept gifts for their decisions.
We now go to Rabbi Abraham Tzvi Hirsch Eisenstadt of Bialystok (1812-1868) the author of the Pischei Teshuva on Shulchan Aruch. He cites (CM 9:1) the ruling of the Pilpula Charifta authoritatively.
The Yeshiva Administrator Question and Conclusion
Based upon all of this, it is clear that both President Trump and even an administrator of a yeshiva may not take freebies or perks if he is in charge of decision-making. A wise rosh yeshiva once remarked, “You must always ask yourself whether you would regret doing it if what you did would appear in The New York Times with its negative slant. If you would regret doing it — then don’t.”
The author can be reached at [email protected]
