By MEG KINNARD

President Donald Trump ‘s readiness to accept a luxury jet as a gift from the ruling family of Qatar for conversion into a presidential aircraft has revived the conversations around emoluments and the notion of a president otherwise allegedly profiting off of the office.

“I would never be one to turn down that kind of an offer,” he told reporters on Monday, after being asked if Qatar was getting anything in return for the plane. “I could be a stupid person and say, ‘no, we don’t want a free, very expensive airplane.’”

But there are constitutional prohibitions against the president receiving gifts from foreign entities or even domestic ones. It’s a conversation over emoluments, territory that Trump has been forced to navigate, and litigate, in the past.

What is an emolument?

Simply, an emolument is compensation for services, from employment or holding office, that can take the form of a salary, fee or profit.

What is the Emoluments Clause?

There are separate emoluments delineations in the U.S. Constitution. Both are aimed at preserving the independence of the president from influence from outside entities, including Congress, states and foreign governments.

Article I bars anyone holding government office from accepting any present, emolument, office or title from any “King, Prince, or foreign State,” without congressional consent.

Article II deals with domestic emoluments, noting that Congress can’t increase or decrease the president’s compensation during his term in office, and prohibits the president from receiving any emolument from the states.

Why is the Emoluments Clause coming up now?

Trump has reportedly been offered a Boeing 747-8 by Qatar in an arrangement that could be formalized as he travels to the Middle East this week. The Qatari government has said a final decision hasn’t been made. But Trump has defended the idea as a fiscally smart move for the country, even as critics argue it would amount to a president accepting an astonishingly valuable gift from a foreign government.

FILE – A 13-year-old private Boeing aircraft that President Donald Trump toured on Saturday to check out new hardware and technology features, and highlight the aircraft maker’s delay in delivering updated versions of the Air Force One presidential aircraft, takes off from Palm Beach International Airport, Feb. 16, 2025, in West Palm Beach, Fla. (AP Photo/Ben Curtis, File)

“If we can get a 747 as a contribution to our Defense Department to use during a couple of years while they’re building the other ones, I think that was a very nice gesture,” Trump said Monday at the White House.

The luxury 747 — currently parked at Palm Beach International Airport, close to Trump’s private Mar-a-Lago resort — would be donated to a future presidential library. Trump has said that he wouldn’t use it for personal travel after leaving office, suggesting that it would be decommissioned like the Boeing 707 that Ronald Reagan flew on in the 1980s, and which is currently on display at Reagan’s presidential library in Simi Valley, California.

There are other Trump-related deals with Qatar. Last month, the Trump family company struck a deal to build a luxury golf resort there, in a sign it has no plans to hold back from foreign dealmaking during a second Trump administration.

The project, which features Trump-branded beachside villas and an 18-hole golf course to be built by a Saudi Arabian company, marked the first foreign deal by the Trump Organization since Trump resumed office.

Has Trump dealt with debate over emoluments before?

In his first term, Trump faced lawsuits from Maryland and the District of Columbia, as well as high-end restaurants and hotels in New York and Washington, D.C., that accused him of illegally profiting off the presidency through his luxury Washington hotel.

Related Articles

Amid Trump’s battle against DEI, nonprofits filling critical labor gaps are caught in the crossfire

Arizona Democratic Sen. Gallego wades into immigration debate with new plan

Trump visiting Gulf Arab states while crises flare in Gaza and Iran

Deputy attorney general who defended Trump in hush money trial named acting librarian of Congress

House Republicans unveil Medicaid cuts that Democrats warn will leave millions without care

In 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court brought an end to the cases, ruling them as moot since Trump was no longer president. The justices threw out Trump’s challenge to lower court rulings that had allowed lawsuits to go forward alleging that he violated the Constitution’s emoluments clause by accepting payments from foreign and domestic officials who stay at the Trump International Hotel and patronize other businesses owned by the former president and his family.

Has Congress weighed in on emoluments?

They’ve tried.

Last year, congressional Democrats introduced legislation that would prohibit U.S. officials from accepting money, payments or gifts from foreign governments without congressional consent. It was their response to a yearslong probe into Trump’s overseas business dealings.

The proposals led by Rep. Jamie Raskin and Sen. Richard Blumenthal would enforce the Constitution’s ban on emoluments, which prohibits the president from accepting foreign gifts and money without Congress’ permission. Democrats have argued that Trump ignored the clause as president.

Both bills did not advance.

Kinnard reported from Chapin, South Carolina, and can be reached at http://x.com/MegKinnardAP.

NEW DELHI (AP) — A deadly attack on tourists in the disputed Kashmir has plunged relations between India and Pakistan to new lows, with both sides hinting at imminent military action.

Related Articles

Israel’s blockade means Gaza’s hospitals cannot provide food to recovering patients

Russian drones attack Ukraine after the Kremlin turns down a ceasefire proposal but promises talks

Food security experts warn Gaza is at critical risk of famine if Israel doesn’t end its blockade

Hamas says it released Israeli-American hostage in goodwill gesture toward Trump administration

US and China reach a deal to slash sky-high tariffs for now, with a 90-day pause

India accuses Pakistan of backing the massacre, in which 26 men, mostly Indian Hindus, were killed, a charge Pakistan denies. Both countries have since expelled diplomats and citizens, ordered the border shut and closed their airspace for each other.

Soldiers on each side have exchanged fire along their de facto border, with each blaming the other for shooting first.

Here’s a look at multiple conflicts between the two countries since their bloody partition in 1947:

1947 — Months after British India is partitioned into a predominantly Hindu India and a Muslim-majority Pakistan, the two young nations fight their first war over control of Muslim-majority Kashmir, then a kingdom ruled by a Hindu monarch. The war killed thousands before ending in 1948.

1949 — A U.N.-brokered ceasefire line leaves Kashmir divided between India and Pakistan, with the promise of a U.N.-sponsored vote that would enable the region’s people to decide whether to be part Pakistan or India. That vote has never been held.

1965 — The rivals fight their second war over Kashmir. Thousands are killed in inconclusive fighting before a ceasefire is brokered by the Soviet Union and the United States. Negotiations in Tashkent run until January 1966, ending in both sides giving back territories they seized during the war and withdrawing their armies.

1971 — India intervenes in a war over the independence of East Pakistan, which ends with the territory breaking away as the new country of Bangladesh. An estimated 3 million people are killed in the conflict.

1972 — India and Pakistan sign a peace accord, renaming the ceasefire line in Kashmir as the Line of Control, a heavily fortified stretch of military outposts that divide the region between them. Both sides deploy more troops along the frontier, turning it into a heavily fortified stretch of military outposts.

1989 — Kashmiri dissidents, with support from Pakistan, launch a bloody rebellion against Indian rule. Indian troops respond with brutal measures, intensifying diplomatic and military skirmishes between New Delhi and Islamabad.

1999 — Pakistani soldiers and Kashmiri fighters seize several Himalayan peaks on the Indian side of the territory. India responds with aerial bombardments and artillery. At least 1,000 combatants are killed over 10 weeks and a worried world fears the fighting could escalate to nuclear conflict. The U.S. eventually steps in to mediate, ending the fighting.

2016 — Militants sneak into an army base in Indian-controlled Kashmir, killing at least 18 soldiers. India responds by sending special forces inside Pakistani-held territory, later claiming to have killed multiple suspected rebels in “surgical strikes.” Pakistan denies that the strikes take place, but it leads to days of major border skirmishes. Combatants and civilians on both sides are killed.

2019 — The two sides again come close to war after a Kashmiri insurgent rams an explosive-laden car into a bus carrying Indian soldiers, killing 40. India sends carries out air strikes in Pakistani territory, claiming to have struck a militant training facility. Pakistan later shoot down an Indian warplane and captures a pilot. He was later released, deescalating tensions.

2025 — Militants attack Indian tourists in region’s Pahalgam resort town and kill 26 men, most of them Hindus. India blames Pakistan for the attack, something Islamabad denies, and vows revenge on the attackers, sending tensions to their highest point since 2019. Both sides cancel visas of each other’s citizens, recall diplomats, shut their only land border crossing and close their airspace to each other. New Delhi also suspends a crucial water-sharing treaty with Islamabad.

La entrada en vigor de la ley Real ID ha pasado por numerosos retrasos, y sus plazos han sido extendidos varias veces, el más reciente en 2020 durante la pandemia del Covid-19. Luego de 20 años ha empezado su implementación.

A partir del 7 de mayo, las licencias de conducción disponibles en 19 estados que se daban sin importar el estatus migratorio del solicitante dejaron de ser aceptadas en los aeropuertos. (Foto del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional por Tia Dufour)

Desde el pasado 6 de mayo, en los aeropuertos de los Estados Unidos se le está pidiendo a los pasajeros de vuelos al interior del país que muestren un documento de identificación como una licencia de conducir que tenga las características de un “Real ID”, como se le llama en inglés. 

Un Real ID es una licencia de conducir, un permiso de aprendizaje o identificación de no conductor emitida por un estado que cumple con las normas federales. Las licencias Real ID suelen estar marcadas con una estrella dorada, o negra, o una bandera estadounidense, y su aspecto varía según el estado.

A raíz del ataque a las torres gemelas en 2001, el gobierno federal presionó para endurecer las normas nacionales sobre la documentación expedida por los estados y, en 2005, el Congreso aprobó la ley Real ID. 

La entrada en vigor de la ley Real ID ha pasado por numerosos retrasos, y sus plazos han sido extendidos varias veces, el más reciente en 2020 durante la pandemia del Covid-19. Luego de 20 años ha empezado su implementación.

Sin embargo, el plazo de cumplimiento del Real ID es muy importante para las personas que viajan en avión y no tienen estatus legal en EE.UU. A partir del 7 de mayo, las licencias de conducción disponibles en 19 estados que se daban sin importar el estatus migratorio del solicitante dejaron de ser aceptadas en los aeropuertos.

La Secretaria del Departamento de Seguridad Nacional, Kristi Noem, dijo que no se impedirá el acceso a los vuelos a los viajeros que no cuenten con un documento reconocido por el gobierno federal, y agregó que se les permitirá viajar, pero tendrán que pasar controles adicionales.

Para consultar la lista completa de documentos de identidad aceptados por la Administración de Seguridad en el Transporte (TSA por sus siglas en inglés), haga clic aquí.

Así que para hablar del Real ID para vuelos domésticos, por que es importante para los inmigrantes y recomendaciones para viajes internacionales de inmigrantes con visas o Green Card, invitamos a Aitana Vargas, codirectora editorial y corresponsal en Los Ángeles para el medio La Cronista. 

Más detalles en nuestra conversación a continuación.

Ciudad Sin Límites, el proyecto en español de City Limits, y El Diario de Nueva York se han unido para crear el pódcast “El Diario Sin Límites” para hablar sobre latinos y política. Para no perderse ningún episodio de nuestro pódcast “El Diario Sin Límites” síguenos en Spotify, Soundcloud, Apple Pódcast y Stitcher. Todos los episodios están allí. ¡Suscríbete!

The post PODCAST: ¿Cómo afecta la entrada en vigor del ‘Real ID’ a inmigrantes en los Estados Unidos? appeared first on City Limits.

By PETER SMITH

The Episcopal Church’s migration service is refusing a directive from the federal government to help resettle white South Africans granted refugee status, citing the church’s longstanding “commitment to racial justice and reconciliation.”

Presiding Bishop Sean Rowe announced the step Monday, one day after 49 South Africans departed their homeland, bound for new homes in the United States. Episcopal Migration Ministries instead will halt its decades-long partnership with the government, Rowe said.

President Donald Trump opened a fast-tracked refugee status to white South Africans, accusing their government of discrimination, even as his administration abruptly shut down the overall U.S. refugee program. The South Africans jumped ahead of thousands of would-be refugees overseas who had been undergoing years of vetting and processing.

Episcopal Migration Ministries has long resettled refugees under federal grants. Rowe said that about two weeks ago, the government contacted it and said it expected the ministry to resettle some of the South Africans under terms of its grant.

“In light of our church’s steadfast commitment to racial justice and reconciliation and our historic ties with the Anglican Church of Southern Africa, we are not able to take this step,” Rowe said. “Accordingly, we have determined that, by the end of the federal fiscal year, we will conclude our refugee resettlement grant agreements with the U.S. federal government.”

Another faith-based group, Church World Service, said it is open to helping resettle the Afrikaners.

South Africa’s government has vehemently denied allegations of discriminatory treatment of its white minority residents.

“It has been painful to watch one group of refugees, selected in a highly unusual manner, receive preferential treatment over many others who have been waiting in refugee camps or dangerous conditions for years,” Rowe said. “I am saddened and ashamed that many of the refugees who are being denied entrance to the United States are brave people who worked alongside our military in Iraq and Afghanistan and now face danger at home because of their service to our country.”

He also said many refugees, including Christians, are victims of religious persecution and are now denied entry.

He said the church would find other ways to serve immigrants, such as those already in this country and those stranded overseas.

The move marks the end of a ministry-government partnership that, for nearly four decades, has served nearly 110,000 refugees from countries ranging from Ukraine, Myanmar and Congo, Rowe said.

It’s not the first high-profile friction between the Episcopal Church and the government. Bishop Mariann Budde of Washington drew Trump’s anger in January at an inaugural prayer service in which she urged “mercy” on those fearing his actions, including migrants and LGBTQ+ children.

The Anglican Church of Southern Africa includes churches in South Africa and neighboring countries. It was a potent force in the campaign against apartheid in the 1980s and 1990s, an effort for which the late Archbishop Desmond Tutu received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1984.

Another faith-based refugee agency, Church World Service, says it is open to serving the South African arrivals.

“We are concerned that the U.S. Government has chosen to fast-track the admission of Afrikaners, while actively fighting court orders to provide life-saving resettlement to other refugee populations who are in desperate need of resettlement,” Rick Santos, CWS president and CEO, said in a statement.

He added that the action proves the government knows how to screen and process refugees quickly.

“Despite the Administration’s actions, CWS remains committed to serving all eligible refugee populations seeking safety in the United States, including Afrikaners who are eligible for services,” he said. “Our faith compels us to serve each person in our care with dignity and compassion.”

The Episcopal ministry and CWS are among 10 national groups, most of them faith-based, that have partnered with the government for refugee resettlement.

Associated Press writer Tiffany Stanley contributed.

Associated Press religion coverage receives support through the AP’s collaboration with The Conversation US, with funding from Lilly Endowment Inc. The AP is solely responsible for this content.