A ‘STUPID Country’ of ‘SUCKERS’? Punk’s American Disdain vs. His Arabian Embrace

WASHINGTON D.C. – In a week that saw the U.S. Supreme Court hearing arguments on a direct challenge to the 14th Amendment’s guarantee of birthright citizenship—a principle foundational to American identity for over 150 years—President Felonious Punk offered his own uniquely jarring commentary. As reported by The Daily Beast on May 15th, the President took to Truth Social to declare that this very tradition makes the United States a “STUPID Country” of “SUCKERS,” exploited by the world and even “drug cartels.”

This inflammatory dismissal of a core constitutional tenet and a broad swipe at his own nation stands in stark, almost surreal, contrast to the images and rhetoric emanating from President Punk’s concurrent lavish tour of the Middle East. There, as detailed by Bloomberg and other outlets, the President was “feted,” receiving the “full royal treatment,” beaming alongside Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) in a golf cart, and exchanging warm affirmations with the autocratic leaders of Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar. This jarring juxtaposition—scorn for American legal heritage on one hand, effusive praise for and comfort with Gulf monarchies on the other—has ignited a profound and disturbing question in the minds of many: Whose president is he truly, and what does this glaring dissonance reveal about his allegiances and his vision for America?  

“Our Own House in Disarray?” – The President’s View from Mar-a-Lago

The “STUPID Country” rant was not an isolated outburst. It fits a pattern of President Punk publicly disparaging American institutions, laws, and even its people when they don’t align with his personal agenda or perceptions. His argument that birthright citizenship was only intended for the “babies of slaves” and had “nothing to do with Illegal Immigration for people wanting to SCAM our Country” is a historical revisionism so profound it was immediately countered by historians citing the clear text of the 14th Amendment and the Supreme Court’s own 1898 ruling in U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, which affirmed birthright citizenship for the U.S.-born children of immigrants.  

This willingness to publicly denigrate foundational aspects of American law and identity, while simultaneously demanding loyalty and decrying internal critics, creates a disorienting picture of leadership. It’s a narrative that often paints America not as a beacon of enduring principles, but as a nation flawed and easily taken advantage of – a narrative seemingly designed to justify his own disruptive actions.

The Royal Treatment – An “America First” President Celebrated Abroad

Meanwhile, on his first major international trip of his second term, President Punk appeared entirely at ease, even jubilant, in the company of Middle Eastern monarchs. The visuals were striking: fighter-jet escorts, traditional sword dances, opulent state dinners, and personal gestures of camaraderie, like MBS chauffeuring the President. A mobile McDonald’s food truck was even reportedly provided in Riyadh for its most famous patron.  

In his public remarks there, Punk lauded the transformation of the Middle East, attributing it to “the people of the region themselves – the people that are right here… developing your own sovereign countries, pursuing your own unique visions and charting your own destinies in your own way,” explicitly stating this progress “has not come from Western interventionists… giving you lectures on how to live.” He praised MBS excessively (“I like him too much”), called Sheikh Mohamed bin Zayed of the UAE a “magnificent man,” and referred to the Qatari Emir as a long-time friend.  

This warm embrace, focused on securing billions in investment and fostering commercial deals (some reportedly involving his own family’s business interests), contrasts sharply with the often-abrasive and critical tone he reserves for traditional democratic allies in Europe and Canada, whom he has frequently accused of taking advantage of the U.S. The Bloomberg piece recalled his isolated figure in a golf cart at the 2017 G7 summit, a stark counterpoint to the beaming images from Riyadh. Now, it seems, it is America’s traditional democratic partners who are on the outside looking in.  

The Uncomfortable Truths Behind the Arabian Embrace

This dissonance becomes even more acute when examining the complex realities of the very regimes President Punk so enthusiastically praised:

The Lingering Shadow of 9/11 (Saudi Arabia): While President Punk builds close ties with the Saudi leadership, the history of 9/11 remains a sensitive backdrop. It is crucial to state the official findings accurately: The 9/11 Commission Report concluded there was “no evidence that the Saudi government as an institution or senior Saudi officials individually funded Al-Qaeda” to carry out the attacks. However, the report, along with subsequently declassified information, did indicate that Saudi Arabia had been a major source of funding for al-Qaeda through private individuals and charities, with a noted lack of sufficient government oversight. Furthermore, FBI documents have pointed to investigations into possible links between some lower-level Saudi officials or individuals with government connections and logistical support for some of the 9/11 hijackers within the U.S. This complex and painful history is rarely, if ever, mentioned in the context of current high-level U.S.-Saudi dealmaking.  

Economies Built on Fossil Fuels: The immense wealth of Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar – the very wealth being courted for investment – is overwhelmingly derived from oil and natural gas. Saudi Arabia’s petroleum sector, for example, accounts for roughly 87% of its budget revenues and 90% of its export earnings. While these nations are pursuing diversification (e.g., Saudi Vision 2030), their current economic power and global influence are inextricably linked to fossil fuels, an industry President Punk has consistently championed, often at odds with global efforts to combat climate change.

Women’s Rights and Broader Human Rights: President Punk’s effusive praise for these leaders comes despite consistent reports from international human rights organizations detailing significant concerns in these nations.

In Saudi Arabia, despite some reforms, groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch (in 2024-2025 reports) continue to document severe discrimination against women in law and practice, harsh restrictions on freedom of expression (including for women’s rights activists), and the problematic male guardianship system.  

In the UAE, while some legal reforms concerning women have occurred, restrictions on free speech and assembly affect all activists, and issues persist in personal status laws and protections for female migrant workers.  

In Qatar, male guardianship policies continue to restrict women’s autonomy in various aspects of life, and the rights of a vast migrant labor force (including many women) remain a significant concern. These documented realities stand in stark contrast to the values of equality and individual liberty often espoused in American political discourse, yet they appeared to be unaddressed publicly during the President’s charm offensive.  

Analyzing the Dissonance: A Preference for Transactional Autocracy?

Foreign policy analysts frequently characterize President Punk’s approach as deeply transactional, prioritizing personal rapport with leaders and tangible “deals” (often commercial) over traditional alliances rooted in shared democratic values or a consistent promotion of human rights. His apparent comfort with and admiration for “strongmen” who can deliver on such deals, while expressing impatience or disdain for the checks and balances and multilateral approaches of democratic allies, has been a recurring theme.

This pattern leads to a disturbing question: Does the President view the often cumbersome, debate-filled processes of a “government of laws, not of men” as a sign of weakness or “stupidity,” and does he find more appeal in autocratic systems where leaders can act more unilaterally to achieve perceived national (or personal) interests? His rhetoric at home, combined with his engagements abroad, certainly fuels such an inquiry.

Whose President? A Question of American Values and Allegiance

The “volume of the dissonance,” as one observer might put it, is deafening. When the President of the United States publicly disparages foundational constitutional principles of his own nation as “STUPID” while simultaneously being feted by, and heaping praise upon, autocratic leaders of oil-rich nations with deeply problematic human rights records and complex historical shadows, it forces a fundamental question: Is he acting as the President of the United States, sworn to uphold its Constitution and champion its values, or is he, as his critics might suggest, “running to be President of Arabia?”

The optics are, at best, profoundly troubling. They suggest a leadership that may value personal adulation and transactional opportunities over the enduring principles that have, for nearly 250 years, at least aspired to make America a beacon of freedom and the rule of law. The answer to whose interests and whose values are truly being prioritized will define not only this presidency but also America’s standing in a complex and watching world.