President Donald Trump has issued an executive order that for the first time extends a NATO-style security guarantee to an Arab state.
The order, signed on Monday, proclaims,
[I]t is the policy of the United States to guarantee the security and territorial integrity of the State of Qatar against external attack.
Trump framed the move as recognition of Qatar’s long partnership with Washington. The order cited Doha’s role in hosting U.S. forces, supporting “critical security operations,” and acting as “a steadfast ally in pursuit of peace, stability, and prosperity.”
The language of the pledge is striking, echoing NATO’s Article 5 by committing the United States to treat an attack on Qatar as if it were an attack on America itself:
The United States shall regard any armed attack on the territory, sovereignty, or critical infrastructure of the State of Qatar as a threat to the peace and security of the United States.
Therefore, the president commits to a wide-ranging response:
In the event of such an attack, the United States shall take all lawful and appropriate measures — including diplomatic, economic, and, if necessary, military — to defend the interests of the United States and of the State of Qatar and to restore peace and stability.
The order mandated coordination at the highest levels. The secretary of war must keep joint contingency planning with Doha. The secretary of state is directed to reaffirm the pledge and coordinate with allies “to ensure complementary measures of support.”
The order also highlighted Qatar’s diplomatic clout. “The Secretary of State shall continue to partner with the State of Qatar as and when appropriate for conflict resolution and mediation,” it read. That clause explicitly recognized Doha’s long record of mediation, from Taliban talks to hostage negotiations.
While the order contained disclaimers about funding and limits of legal enforcement, the message was unambiguous. For the first time, Washington equated Qatar’s security with its own.
The announcement followed Israel’s airstrikes on Doha on September 9, which killed six people, including five Hamas officials tasked with negotiating a Gaza ceasefire and one Qatari officer. On Monday, Trump arranged a call in which Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu apologized to his Qatari counterpart, vowing no repeat of the strike. The apology and Trump’s security guarantee to Qatar came the same day.
Trump denied prior knowledge of the Israeli strike, but the claim did little to blunt criticism. The attack on Doha drew sharp condemnation from Arab states, European leaders, and, for what it’s worth, the UN Security Council (which, notably, adopted its rebuke with the United States joining in support).
Israeli officials, however, told Axios that Trump had been briefed on the Doha attack by Netanyahu. “If Trump had wanted to stop it, he could have,” said one senior official. That ambiguity raised questions about whether Washington’s guarantee was reactive damage control or part of a broader strategy.
Analyst, such as Dave DeCamp of antiwar.com, argue the order may be less about Israel than Iran. During the June 12-Day War — a brief but fierce clash triggered by an Israeli strike on Iran’s nuclear program and followed by waves of Iranian missile and drone retaliation — Tehran struck the U.S. Al Udeid Air Base in Qatar in retaliation for U.S. bombing of its facilities. That attack came with prior warning, but future strikes may not.
The guarantee also comes as U.S.–Iran negotiations have collapsed. Trump demanded that Tehran dismantle uranium enrichment and accept strict limits on its missile program. Iran flatly refused, calling talks with the United States “a sheer dead end.”
At the same time, Trump has escalated pressure through immigration and economic levers. His administration is deporting hundreds of Iranians from U.S. soil, with the first wave of 120 already in transit. The Treasury has also imposed sanctions on 21 entities and 17 individuals tied to Iran’s missile and aircraft procurement networks.
Qatar’s reputation complicates the picture. The small Gulf monarchy has long been accused of cultivating ties with Islamist groups, most prominently Hamas. It has supported the movement for years, providing both political cover and financial aid. Hamas leaders have been hosted openly, enjoying a level of protection they rarely find elsewhere. According to France24, hundreds of millions of dollars have been transferred to Hamas leadership in Gaza under Qatari auspices, a process that, they claim, took place in “full coordination” with Israel and the United Nations (UN).
The links extend beyond Hamas. In 2017, the State Department reported,
Many individuals and charities in Qatar have been known to raise large sums of money for al-Qaeda, the Nusra Front, Hamas, and even ISIS.
The country also granted the Taliban a political office, sheltering its leaders in a five-star villa during U.S. negotiations. After Egypt cracked down on the Muslim Brotherhood, many of its figures found refuge in the Qatar. Finally, Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, “the mastermind” of 9/11, lived in Qatar from 1993 to 1996 while holding a government post. When U.S. agents sought his arrest, he vanished, with reports suggesting a tip-off from Abdullah bin Khalid al-Thani, then a Qatari minister.
These connections underscore Washington’s double standards. Ties that are denounced in others are tolerated in this case, even as the United States extends its strongest-ever security guarantee to Qatar.
Observers highlight a web of questionable financial ties surrounding Trump and his circle. A New York Times investigation published last week found that Alex Witkoff solicited “billions” from Qatar even as his father, developer Steve Witkoff and Trump’s special envoy in ceasefire talks, was negotiating with its officials.
Another key figure is Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and former White House advisor. His private equity firm, Affinity Partners, secured $1.5 billion from Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund and an Abu Dhabi asset manager in late 2024, according to SEC filings. Kushner’s financial links to Qatar stretch back to the controversial bailout of his family’s debt-ridden 666 Fifth Avenue property.
As Kushner’s role in Trump’s Middle East diplomacy persists, the White House brushes off the criticism. On Wednesday, White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed questions on Kushner’s apparent conflicts of interest as “despicable” political attacks.
Even Trump himself has been tied to Qatari largesse through a $400 million “flying palace,” a luxury Boeing 747 accepted as a gift to serve as a temporary Air Force One. The president defended the arrangement directly. He insisted the jet was “being given to the United States Air Force/Department of Defense, NOT TO ME!” and calling it a taxpayer-saving measure.
In April, the Trump Organization, co-led by the president’s sons, Eric and Donald, Jr., launched a major golf resort project in partnership with state-owned developer Qatari Diar, complete with Trump-branded villas along the coast. The project is part of a broader $5.5 billion development plan. Eric and Donald, Jr. have been involved in the deal. While legitimate from a business standpoint, the venture blurs the line between private empire and public diplomacy.
The guarantee raises a fundamental constitutional problem because it sidelines Congress. The U.S. Constitution states in Article II, Section 2:
[The President] shall have power, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate, to make treaties, provided two thirds of the Senators present concur.
Binding defense commitments therefore require Senate approval.
Trump’s executive order bypassed that process, creating what amounts to a security pact without a single vote on Capitol Hill. By pledging to treat an attack on Qatar as an attack on America, the order assumes authority that the Framers placed in the hands of the legislature.
The commitment now rests entirely on executive will. It can be revoked by a future president, but until then it binds the United States to war without congressional consent, eroding the constitutional balance between the branches of government.