1a. Do you agree with President Trump’s decision to accept a ~$400 million luxury plane from the Qatari government to serve as Air Force One during his presidency?

Yes (23%) – "That's $400M that doesn't hit taxpayers, so as far as I'm concerned, it's a good move. President Trump did the right thing trying to get the current planes replaced because they're so old, but for reasons out of his control, he'll likely never see those in his presidency. Everyone is always all about foreign relations until this opportunity presents itself. It doesn't affect many, if anyone, if he uses it for personal use down the road; he takes a huge pay cut to even serve as POTUS. If he was in this for pure personal gain, he wouldn't have run for President, not once, but twice."

No (66%) – "It is going to cost the government more money to secure the plane and assess it for potential security risks than the gift itself. Additionally, it should not be transfered to the Trump Presidential Library Foundation if US dollars are spent to secure the plane. It should remain as a Federal Government entity. Obvious grift and leverage piece for Qatar over Trump."

• "Even without the multiple security concerns of accepting such an aircraft (unsanctioned mods like bugs, transmitters, etc) it creates, at the very least, a massive appearance of a conflict of interest. I do not see Muslim countries as our friends as their unyielding religion says they are definitely not and promotes its theocracy by all means."

"I work in a position of trust governed by legal and standardized requirements. If I did something like this I'd be investigated and sanctioned by multiple parties so fast my head would spin. And there are reasons for that! Independence in both fact and appearance is crucial to a fair process, whatever that process is; in no circumstances should it even LOOK like a decision maker is up for sale."

Unsure/other (11%) – "My main concern doesn't revolve around the acceptance of the plane as a gift but rather the potential breach of security via listening devices and lack of defensive capabilities afforded Air Force One."

1b. In general, do you agree with Trump’s latest diplomatic moves in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia’s $600 billion investment, and lifting all sanctions on Syria)?

Yes (35%) – "I think we’re seeing a new geopolitical order emerge, and the Trump administration is pushing peace through strength by empowering actors in the Middle East to act as balancing powers in different areas. You see it with negotiations with the Ukraine-Russian war (negotiations first happened in Riyad, not Reykjavik!), the emergence of a wanting of an Abrahams Accord 2, etc. This is the latest in that trend."

• "Yes, this is the way to move the United States forward. We need to improve relationships with other countries and allow our country to become fiscally solvent. Anything we can do to move towards solvency is a move in the right direction."

No (41%) – "I would be extremely wary of any dealings with extreme religion motivated people/countries that, by their own iron clad religious tenants, are against all we stand for as a free nation of liberty and rule 'by the people'. Until their beliefs are modified to be more compatible or even accepting of other beliefs, I would deem any interaction with such entities as, at best, chancy and ultimately, quite unproductive."

• "The hypocrisy—pretending that yanking student visas and deporting green card holders and even US citizens for perceived antisemitism while removing sanctions on countries that fund Hamas—is mind-boggling."

Unsure/other (24%) – "As always, mixed bag. The Saudis are buying their way to widespread recognition as juggernauts, through blood money in sports, entertainment, and tourism. I don't agree with that, but the prevailing winds are in their favor from the West, so I guess benefiting from them throwing their money around is nice. Notably, they made similar promises under Trump 1.0 and those investments never materialized at scale, so this could be another flag waving celebration with no bones behind the facade. As for the sanctions...tricky. The region DOES need stability, there's no question. Loosening sanctions is a way to enable that. I don't know whether we want to loosen sanctions on bloody dictators, but I don't know enough about regional dynamics to guess whether this will do more harm than good or vise versa; it's not my area of study."