In the summer of 2025, the White House quietly signed an executive order, but the content was not so low-key. President Trump announced that the United States will provide Qatar with a security protection similar to that enjoyed by NATO members.
This is not an ordinary statement, but a "presidential commitment" that has not passed Congress or the treaty process. This executive order was neither publicly consulted nor voted by members of Congress, so it came into effect directly.
What shocked the outside world was not only the document itself, but also the way power was used and institutional risks reflected behind it.
President signs, Congress stands aside: gaps in system design have been ripped off
In the United States, Congress should have been an important part of diplomatic decision-making, but over the years, executive orders have become more and more like a toolkit for the president to “oper independently.”
He believes Congress is too inefficient and easy to bypass.In the past year, he has repeatedly used this tool in foreign policy, without having to go through long procedures or negotiate conditions with lawmakers.
This type of operation is based on several decades ago enacted laws, such as the International Emergency Economic Power Act, which was originally intended to enable the president to act quickly in case of an emergency.
However, this law has no specific restrictions on how to judge "emergency" or what can be done. Trump once used this law to ban foreign companies, and now he uses it as an endorsement to write military commitments into Qatar's "protection agreement."
The problem is that such a commitment is not a trade restriction or a temporary measure, but a long-term commitment on the strategic security level.In accordance with the U.S. Constitution, only Congress has the right to decide whether to use troops abroad or sign a security treaty.
But this time, Congress didn't intervene at all, and even after the document was signed, many members didn't know the details of the content.
This mode of operation makes the "balance of power" originally set by the system design ineffective. The president holds the executive order in his hand, and once it is abused, the border will disappear. Once the trend of using administrative orders to engage in diplomacy, make protection promises, and decide on national sides becomes popular, the firewall of the system may be completely broken down.
Behind Qatar's "regularization": What a promise gains is not trust, but doubt
Qatar is a small country with a small area and a small population, but its geographical location is extremely important. It is close to Iran and has contradictions with Saudi Arabia, with both U.S. military bases and with organizations such as Hamas and the Taliban.It has played a subtle role in U.S. Middle East policy because of this complex geological environment.
In 2017, when Trump first came to power, he publicly criticized Qatar, saying that it "funded extremist forces" and once supported Saudi Arabia and other countries 'blockade of Qatar. But over the years, the wind changed.
Now Trump, not only did not mention those criticisms, but instead with a paper President promised to "protect" Qatar.
What's more striking is that the business dealings between the Trump family and Qatar have never been broken. Qatar's sovereign fund has invested in Trump-related golf projects. Recently, there are rumors that Trump's team accepted a "private gift" from a luxury plane.
Although the White House denies that this is related to the executive order, in the eyes of the public, it is difficult to draw the blurred line between political and business relations.
In this context, this "quasi-security treaty" has made the outside world even more uneasy. It does not have clear obligations and mechanisms like NATO, nor does it have legal validity guarantees. Once the situation changes, will the United States really send troops for Qatar?
No one knows for sure. And Qatar itself may not be able to rest assured of its security on such a "verbal agreement."
The situation in the Middle East is complicated, and what will the United States do next?
The conflict between Israel and Hamas continues, the Iranian nuclear issue remains unresolved, and the shadow of war between Saudi Arabia and Yemen remains.
Every move on this land can trigger a chain reaction, and the United States, although it has a large military presence in the region, has been avoiding direct involvement in the conflict of non-signatory allies.
Now, Trump's paper executive order is equivalent to issuing a "protection order" to Qatar, but the actual effect is like lighting a match on the gunpowder pile.Once Qatar's relations with its neighbors deteriorate or even conflict breaks out, will the United States intervene? If involved, is it air support or ground deployment? These questions are currently unanswered.
What’s worse, this promise, once fulfilled, could trigger a chain reaction.What would other Middle Eastern countries think?Would Saudi Arabia not feel US paranoia?Would Israel be upset?
In addition, other allies of the United States in the region, such as Jordan and the United Arab Emirates, may also reassess the basis of cooperation with the United States. After all, without any formal procedures, the United States suddenly gave a non-treaty country "special treatment". This opaque decision-making mechanism itself is easy to cause suspicion.
What is exposed behind this is actually an old problem in U.S. foreign policy: lack of consistency. The strategy of the former president may be completely overturned by the latter. Today it is Qatar, tomorrow it may be another country.
Politics will change, and allies will naturally be vigilant.If America’s promise turns into “looking at the president’s mood,” how will it maintain its credibility globally?
Domestic response: It is not only a struggle between political parties, but also an anxiety at the institutional level
This executive order has not caused a storm in the United States. Not only Democrats expressed dissatisfaction, but even some senior Republican lawmakers expressed doubts.They argue that such important strategic commitments should not be left to the president alone, but should at least involve Congress in the discussion.
The more critical issue is that this is not the first time, nor may it be the last time. Trump has repeatedly mentioned that he believes in “fast decision making” and is reluctant to be dragged by “inefficient Congress.”
But the problem is that the system is not set up for "speed", but for "stability". As the executive head, the president must of course have emergency powers, but if everything bypasses Congress, how long can the separation of powers structure operate?
At present, many non-governmental organizations and constitutional research institutions in the United States have begun to raise legal challenges to this executive order.
Although this will not affect the effectiveness of the document itself in the short term, in the long run, if the president's executive power continues to expand, the U.S. system may face deeper structural challenges.
After all, foreign policy is not just an abstract strategic question, it is about whether a country will be involved in conflict, it is about whether the military will march to the battlefield.The president's decision alone could be a turning point in the fate of thousands of families.
Under a paper order, triple trouble appears.
On the surface, this executive order against Qatar is a diplomatic incident, but in fact it affects the core mechanism of the operation of the American system.
If the boundaries of the president's power, the stability of the system, and the coherence of foreign policy cannot be coordinated and balanced, the United States 'global credibility and internal governance capabilities may all face challenges.
Trump's move may be due to strategic layout, or it may be mixed with personal judgment or even private motives. But no matter what the original intention is, this major commitment made unilaterally by bypassing Congress has left a clear question at the institutional level: when the system cannot restrain power, who will be responsible for the consequences?
This is not the end. It is just another reminder that the stability of institutions does not lie in how beautifully written they are, but in whether they actually prevent the will of individuals from overriding the mechanisms of the state.
Qatar is protected, but the United States is given an unanswerable question. Who makes decisions, how to make decisions, and for whom to make decisions are far more worthy of being seen than an executive order itself.
Source of information:
In July 2025, Trump signed an executive order promising to provide "strategic security support" to Qatar under the "national security emergency framework," which was interpreted by the outside world as a "quasi-NATO" commitment.
In June 2025, Qatar presented Trump with a Boeing 747 private jet worth about US$400 million, triggering Democratic lawmakers to raise questions about "violating the Foreign Gifts Act."