Air Force One: Trump's Billion Dollar 'Boondoggle' Explained
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
Qatar's proposed "gift" of a jumbo jet to Air Force One has added a new twist to a multi-billion-dollar saga that began in 2018, when Boeing agreed with President Donald Trump to deliver two new presidential aircraft. Seven years later, it remains incomplete.
The deal, signed in 2018 for $3.9 billion, commissioned Boeing to deliver two new custom 747-8s into Air Force One, a project that has fallen off schedule, angering the president.
The project also faces additional pressure from the GOP, some of whom argue it is among "the biggest government boondoggles" and should face further public scrutiny.
US President Donald Trump arrives in the Qatari capital Doha from Saudi Arabia on May 14, 2025.
US President Donald Trump arrives in the Qatari capital Doha from Saudi Arabia on May 14, 2025.
BRENDAN SMIALOWSKI/AFP via Getty Images
As the story continues, Newsweek has summarized the key events so far.
Trump signs deal in 2018
In February 2018, the White House said Boeing would build two next-generation Air Force One planes at a fixed cost of $3.9 billion. Trump, backed by his officials, claimed his deal-making had made savings worth around $1.5 billion. He has since inflated that figure; his original savings claim was called into question by a Newsweek investigation.
The contract won by Boeing would replace the Air Force One VC-25A fleet vehicles with customized 747-8s, to be designated VC-25B, intended for delivery by 2024.
2021-2025: Delays pile up
In 2021, news emerged of delays amid a legal battle between Boeing and one of its contractors. As reported by Defense One, Boeing sued contractor GDC Technics, which countersued Boeing over the delays.
In June 2021, Air Force acquisition official Darlene Costello told a House Armed Services Committee that the project could be delayed to 2025.
In 2022, the Pentagon officially approved the delay of the first aircraft to September 2026 at the earliest. Pentagon documents state the delay was due to a "combination of factors: interiors supplier transition, wiring design, fabrication, installation timelines, modification throughput limitations, and project execution rates."
The Air Force announced more delays in 2023, estimating the first craft would be delivered by 2027. A press release said the use of dark blue paint on the plane's exterior design, as requested by the White House in 2019, had led to additional heat testing.
"The Air Force remains postured to keep VC-25A available and mission-ready until delivery of the VC-25B," a statement read.
In December 2024, The Wall Street Journal reported that unnamed sources familiar with the matter said the planes would not be ready until 2029 or later.
However, the Air Force has recently said it was working with Boeing to deliver the aircraft within Trump's second term. At a House Armed Services Committee on May 7, 2025, Air Force official Darlene Costello said Boeing had provided an estimated completion date "that did coincide with the end of fiscal year 2027."
"There's some assumptions baked into it that we're not sure are exactly appropriate and we're going to be looking at ways to bring that to the left," Costello added.
Costello wrote in a submission to the committee that the Air Force was "actively pursuing options to accelerate VC-25B delivery in coordination with commercial and government stakeholders" following delays attributed to "interiors supplier transition, manpower limitations, and wiring design completion."
An Air Force official told Newsweek: "Boeing provided an accelerated delivery estimate that could deliver VC-25B aircraft earlier if adjustments are made to requirements.
"The Air Force is coordinating with the White House and Boeing to further define the requirements and acceleration options while ensuring we provide a safe, secure, and reliable aircraft for the President."
Newsweek has contacted a media representative for Boeing via email for comment.
Trump and Allies Complain
While Boeing's former CEO, David Calhoun, said the fixed-cost contract with the Air Force presented a "very unique set of risks Boeing probably shouldn't have taken", Trump has repeatedly criticized the delay to the project.
In February 2025, Trump said he was "not happy with Boeing" and "was looking at alternatives because it's taking Boeing too long." Trump toured a Boeing 747-8 to express his anger, with White House communications manager Steven Cheung saying: "President Trump is touring a new Boeing plane to check out the new hardware and technology. This highlights the project's failure to deliver a new Air Force One on time as promised."
Allies in the GOP have also attacked the project. Iowa Sen. Joni Ernst told DailyMail.com this week the project could fall under a proposal called the "Billion Dollar Boondoggle Act of 2025." The bill would require public disclosure of any project more than $1 billion over budget or five years behind schedule.
According to a February 2025 statement from Republican Congresswoman Mariannette Miller-Meeks, the bill would "rein in Washington's wasteful spending" and hold "excessively costly and delayed" projects to account.
Newsweek has contacted a media representative for Ernst and a contact for Miller-Meeks via email for comment.
Could the Project be Canceled?
Neither Trump nor White House has said the project will be cancelled, although the jumbo jet "gift" from Qatar has refreshed such talk.
Qatari officials said the plane was being given by the Qatari Ministry of Defense to the Pentagon. However, Trump said the Boeing 747-8 jet will be used as the official presidential plane, and, according to multiple reports, after he leaves office, it will be transferred to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation.
A statement by White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt sent to Newsweek said: "Any gift given by a foreign government is always accepted in full compliance with all applicable laws. President Trump's Administration is committed to full transparency."
Newsweek has contacted media representatives for Boeing and the White House about the future of the contract.
Legal experts speaking to Newsweek have said that Boeing could, in theory, sue for breach of contract over the issue.
Attorney Bradley P. Moss told Newsweek that "Boeing would almost certainly have a clear breach of contract lawsuit it could bring, given it remains contracted to produce the new Air Force One planes. That would get messy and heated very quickly."
He added: "Boeing, as well as any contractors and subcontractors, would almost certainly stand to bring a civil action under the Tucker Act."
This act allows individuals to sue the government in specific cases where the government has breached a contract, violated the law, or caused injury. However, it is "very unlikely," according to Richard Painter, a chief ethics lawyer under former President George W. Bush.
"Boeing perhaps could sue if it affects their contract to build Air Force One, but the contract is still in place so it's very unlikely they will sue," he told Newsweek.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Tariffs threaten high-value stocks, analysts warn
Markets are underestimating the risk from Washington's existing tariffs, some analysts warned, as US stocks hit new highs last week. Wall Street has largely shrugged off US President Donald Trump's threats of higher duties: Investors believe he will ultimately back down from any action that causes an adverse market reaction. But the tariffs Trump has already implemented are enough to hurt corporate earnings, an HSBC strategist said. Investors will get more clues as to the levies' longer-term impact this week as several big firms with extensive tariff exposure, like General Motors, release their latest earnings. Some experts fear disappointing revenue or other economic data 'could pull the rug out from under the latest rally,' Bloomberg wrote. — J.D. Capelouto
Yahoo
27 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Investors in Genetic Signatures (ASX:GSS) have unfortunately lost 85% over the last five years
Long term investing is the way to go, but that doesn't mean you should hold every stock forever. We don't wish catastrophic capital loss on anyone. Spare a thought for those who held Genetic Signatures Limited (ASX:GSS) for five whole years - as the share price tanked 85%. And we doubt long term believers are the only worried holders, since the stock price has declined 49% over the last twelve months. On the other hand the share price has bounced 8.2% over the last week. We really hope anyone holding through that price crash has a diversified portfolio. Even when you lose money, you don't have to lose the lesson. So let's have a look and see if the longer term performance of the company has been in line with the underlying business' progress. Trump has pledged to "unleash" American oil and gas and these 15 US stocks have developments that are poised to benefit. Genetic Signatures wasn't profitable in the last twelve months, it is unlikely we'll see a strong correlation between its share price and its earnings per share (EPS). Arguably revenue is our next best option. Shareholders of unprofitable companies usually desire strong revenue growth. That's because fast revenue growth can be easily extrapolated to forecast profits, often of considerable size. Over half a decade Genetic Signatures reduced its trailing twelve month revenue by 2.3% for each year. While far from catastrophic that is not good. The share price fall of 13% (per year, over five years) is a stern reminder that money-losing companies are expected to grow revenue. It takes a certain kind of mental fortitude (or recklessness) to buy shares in a company that loses money and doesn't grow revenue. Fear of becoming a 'bagholder' may be keeping people away from this stock. You can see how earnings and revenue have changed over time in the image below (click on the chart to see the exact values). If you are thinking of buying or selling Genetic Signatures stock, you should check out this FREE detailed report on its balance sheet. A Different Perspective While the broader market gained around 13% in the last year, Genetic Signatures shareholders lost 49%. Even the share prices of good stocks drop sometimes, but we want to see improvements in the fundamental metrics of a business, before getting too interested. Unfortunately, last year's performance may indicate unresolved challenges, given that it was worse than the annualised loss of 13% over the last half decade. Generally speaking long term share price weakness can be a bad sign, though contrarian investors might want to research the stock in hope of a turnaround. I find it very interesting to look at share price over the long term as a proxy for business performance. But to truly gain insight, we need to consider other information, too. To that end, you should be aware of the 3 warning signs we've spotted with Genetic Signatures . But note: Genetic Signatures may not be the best stock to buy. So take a peek at this free list of interesting companies with past earnings growth (and further growth forecast). Please note, the market returns quoted in this article reflect the market weighted average returns of stocks that currently trade on Australian exchanges. Have feedback on this article? Concerned about the content? Get in touch with us directly. Alternatively, email editorial-team (at) article by Simply Wall St is general in nature. We provide commentary based on historical data and analyst forecasts only using an unbiased methodology and our articles are not intended to be financial advice. It does not constitute a recommendation to buy or sell any stock, and does not take account of your objectives, or your financial situation. We aim to bring you long-term focused analysis driven by fundamental data. Note that our analysis may not factor in the latest price-sensitive company announcements or qualitative material. Simply Wall St has no position in any stocks mentioned.
New York Post
28 minutes ago
- New York Post
The city and state's fiscal pain just got real —and it was all so avoidable
Albany and City Hall are now staring at some wicked fiscal headwinds, a key watchdog reports — but it's not like they weren't warned. The Citizens Budget Commission is flagging both the city and state's massive budgets, slamming them as 'unaffordable and unprepared' in light of federal funding cuts and a possible economic slowdown down the road. With passage of President Donald Trump's One Big Beautiful Bill Act, which aims to (slightly) curb the growth of federal outlays, including aid to New York, Gov. Kathy Hochul is directing state agencies to cut $750 million from their budgets. When folks gripe, she'll just point her finger at Trump. Convenient, no? But about reckless and dishonest as can be. And she'll still have to find another $3 billion — and that's assuming no further cuts from Washington in the short term and an economy that remains robust. Plus, the long-term structural gap, CBC says, is now a monstrous $22 billion. It was all sadly predictable, but Hochul and state lawmakers nonetheless decided to blithely run up the tab — to a whopping quarter of a trillion dollars–plus — figuring they can blame the GOP when they have to make cuts or raise taxes. Take health care: Lawmakers boosted spending on it by 17%, even as the Empire Center's Bill Hammond predicted federal Medicaid cuts would shift over $3.3 billion in costs to the state. In April, budget expert E.J. McMahon slapped Hochul and the Legislature for 'whistling in the dark' instead of anticipating likely changes to the state's 'nearly out-of-control Medicaid program.' Now the gov's budget director won't rule out raising taxes, even though Hochul vowed she wouldn't. The CBC instead urges to keep her promise and instead shred her $2 billion 'inflation reduction checks' (i.e., reelection bribes), for starters. The group also called out the city's $116 billion spendapalooza and hit both Albany and City Hall for not squirreling away enough reserves. Whoever become mayor in November, it noted, will have to fill a $6 billon to $8 billion budget gap in just 16 days of taking office. It also ripped mayoral frontrunner Zohran Mamdani's planned tax hikes to cover his ludicrous plans for $10 billion in new outlays. He'd be setting a record for irresponsibility. New Yorkers are now sure to be hit with some pain, whether it's spending cuts or tax hikes. The pols will try to shift blame, of course, but the public wouldn't be in this mess if their leaders had acted like adults from the start.
