be able to see the benefits. But the Qataris have a plane that apparently they're willing to part with, a new one. And they said, "Why don't we give it to the Air Force?" So it's not Trump's gift exactly. It'd be given to the Air Force and then somehow later it would be donated to the Trump Library for his use. So that seems a little sketchy. So it feels a little like you'd be getting a free airplane. And so you got that going on.

So I'm going to say the same thing about all these Trump deals. They all make me uncomfortable. The Qatari plane definitely makes me uncomfortable. And on top of that, as you know, Jared Kushner is doing his own investing and he's gotten some co-investors from three of the Middle East countries. Three states I guess have committed more than three and a half billion to his private equity fund. So that makes me uncomfortable. But it's all transparent. It's all completely legal. It just makes me uncomfortable. And then it's sort of semi-related things. There are some investments that would be good for Elon Musk such as the Saudi prince Alwaleed bin Talal, who's a nephew of the king, is an investor in xAI which is Elon Musk's AI company. So but that's normal. He's just a gigantic investor who does a lot of investing in American companies. So again, completely transparent, but makes me uncomfortable.

Now the only thing I can say that would be softening all these deals is that Trump is the one person who can take your money and then screw you if he needs to. So if he were anyone but Trump, you would have to worry more that they just bought his cooperation. But I think Trump could take their money and still throw them under the bus if they did something that required that. But you can't guarantee it. So in terms of buying influence, I do think they're buying influence. But there are also countries that we have a lot of influence on as well. So I don't know. I'll just say that any Democrat criticism on this domain probably makes sense, but there's no smoking gun or anything that he's done wrong or that there's nothing that looks illegal and it's all completely transparent and it's business as usual for the most part. It's stuff that they would be doing as normal business, you know, licensing the Trump name, etc. But like I said, they probably get more offers because he's president. That's not a coincidence.

So we're going to hear a lot more about this Qatari plane. I think Congress says they have to approve it. I think the Democrats are going to complain so much that it gets killed. If I had to guess, it's not more than a 50% chance that that Qatari plane will actually become something that Trump's riding on. I think there'll be enough screaming and kicking from Democrats or maybe even Republicans would think it looks wrong.

In another news, you know what birthright citizenship is, right? So that question is coming to the Supreme Court now. Birthright citizenship is in the Constitution and it means that if you're born in this country with very rare exceptions you are a citizen automatically. You just have to be born here. Now Trump wanted to end that. So you've got some legal challenges to the ending of it and it's going to go to the Supreme Court. Now if you're like me and you've read the actual language of the Constitution, it doesn't look like there's any wiggle room at all. To me it looks like the Constitution is super clear. If you're born here, with some exceptions that aren't relevant to this, if you're born here, you're a citizen. Now I'm not saying that's good or bad. I'm just saying that when I read the Constitution, it looks kind of cut and dried, like there's no way you could challenge it. But of course that's what lawyers are for. They always have a way to challenge everything.

And here's the way they're going to challenge it. So the citizenship clause says it applies to children born in the USA who are quote "subject to the jurisdiction thereof." Now that would disqualify, for example, a diplomat's child. So if they were a diplomat working in the United States, the diplomats are not subject to our laws. So a diplomat can break a law in America and we don't do anything about it because they're not subject to our laws. But their child is also therefore since it's not subject to our jurisdiction, their child is not automatically an American. And I think there are some Native American exceptions, etc.

But here's how they're trying to argue that this "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" applies to the immigrant population. And they say it's analogous to Native Americans. And you know what I always say about analogies? Analogies are not arguments. So if all you have is analogous, you don't have anything. So forget about analogous. Let's go to the stronger part. And they're saying that the noncitizens — I guess this would be the babies too — are intentionally entered the country without authorization and likewise refuse to quote "formally present themselves to American authorities." So does that make you subject to the jurisdiction thereof?

Well to me this is the worst argument ever. And I'm not even a lawyer because the "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" is more about America thinks you're subject to our jurisdiction. It's not about what the immigrant thinks. If the immigrant comes in and they act like they're not subject to our jurisdiction or they think they're not, that has nothing to do with anything. They don't get a vote. It's up to America. So if we say you are subject to our jurisdiction and if we catch you doing illegal things, we're going to put you in jail, I think that's the end of the story, right? It's not up to them if they're subject to our jurisdiction. So to me it looks like there's no chance that Trump can prevail in the birthright citizenship. And again, I'm not giving you an opinion on whether they should or should not. It just looks like the argument is terrible. And you know, again, I'm not a lawyer so I could be wrong, but it