Donald Trump’s approach to the Middle East during his presidency revealed a striking convergence between U.S. foreign policy and his private business interests. From high-level investments to diplomatic shifts, his commercial motivations appeared deeply intertwined with official American strategy.
Shortly after taking office, President Trump chose the Middle East and the Persian Gulf as the destination for his first international trip—a decision that underscored the region’s dual significance for him: as a geopolitical focal point and a lucrative arena for personal business ventures. Many observers noted that the visit seemed to reframe his campaign slogan from “America First” to something closer to “Trump Business First.”
Throughout his presidency, Trump favored a transactional style of diplomacy, where political decisions often appeared linked to financial incentives. His administration’s close ties with wealthy Gulf states—particularly Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar—were a clear example. The $400 million luxury jet allegedly gifted to Trump by the Qatari royal family sparked debate over whether such lavish offerings were meant for the U.S. presidency or Trump personally. Meanwhile, his sons and son-in-law actively pursued high-value deals in the region under the Trump brand, leveraging their political influence to expand the family’s wealth.
The blending of personal profit and policy became even more apparent when Trump signaled a willingness to ease sanctions on Syria following discussions about a potential Trump Tower in Damascus. His meetings with Syrian figures and subsequent promises to lift sanctions alarmed Israeli officials, raising concerns about the reliability of U.S. support. While military cooperation between the U.S. and Israel remained intact, Trump’s unpredictable diplomacy suggested that even long-standing alliances could be swayed by business considerations.
Another telling example was the partial reopening of humanitarian aid routes to Gaza, which coincided with a U.S.-Hamas deal securing the release of American prisoner Alexander Edan. Though framed as a humanitarian gesture, many analysts believed it was part of a broader arrangement with Gulf states—effectively allowing Trump to maximize economic and geopolitical gains while giving Israel free rein to escalate its actions in Gaza.
Trump’s brief Middle East tour reportedly secured $3.5- 5 trillion in investment pledges for American corporations, which he touted as a historic victory for the U.S. Yet it became increasingly evident that the primary beneficiary was the Trump brand itself. Meanwhile, the limited aid permitted into Gaza stood in stark contrast to the massive financial inflows to the U.S., underscoring a glaring imbalance in priorities.
The absence of an official stop in Israel during that trip, combined with U.S. pressure on Tel Aviv to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza, fueled speculation about a rift between the allies. However, given continued U.S. funding for Israel’s military operations—including its offensive in Gaza—any tensions appeared superficial.
What emerges from this pattern is a presidency heavily influenced by commercial interests. Trump’s relationships with Gulf leaders, built on a shared transactional approach to diplomacy, may continue to shape U.S. engagement in the region. These rulers, recognizing Trump’s business-driven mindset, could wield financial leverage to sway American policy more effectively than traditional diplomacy.
Whether this alignment will ultimately reduce the U.S. military presence in the Middle East, as Trump occasionally promised, remains uncertain. What is clear, however, is that his Middle East policy blurred the line between statecraft and self-interest to an unprecedented degree.
