Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) criticized President Donald Trump’s diplomatic relationships with Gulf monarchies on July 25, 2026, arguing that the administration has embraced authoritarian regimes led by the world’s wealthiest ruling families. In a post on X, Sanders questioned the president’s close ties with the United Arab Emirates, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar, stating that these associations undermine democratic values. The stakes involve a sharp political challenge to the administration’s foreign policy direction in the Middle East, framing the relationship as one driven by wealth rather than shared governance principles.

Sanders characterized the three nations as "dictatorships run by the richest families on earth." He highlighted specific wealth estimates to support his critique, noting that the UAE royal family is worth $336 billion, the Saudi royal family $214 billion, and the Qatari royal family $200 billion. Concluding his post, Sanders labeled these leaders "Billionaire dictators: Trump’s best friends." The White House did not immediately respond to Benzinga’s request for comments regarding these allegations.

Royal Family Wealth Estimates

Sanders cited specific figures to illustrate the concentration of wealth among the ruling families of the Gulf states.

Hunter Biden Criticizes Nuclear Deal

Hunter Biden separately criticized a reported U.S.-Saudi nuclear agreement, questioning why Washington opposed Iran’s uranium enrichment while supporting Saudi Arabia’s civilian nuclear ambitions. He alleged that President Trump approved the deal through a national security waiver. Biden pointed to financial ties between Saudi Arabia and the Trump family, including investments linked to Jared Kushner, LIV Golf, and Trump-branded real estate projects, suggesting potential conflicts of interest.

Trump’s Conditions for Saudi Nuclear Deal

President Trump stated that a U.S.-Saudi civil nuclear agreement would only be approved if Saudi Arabia accepted a ban on uranium enrichment, limited the program to peaceful civilian use, and joined the Abraham Accords. This position marked a shift from an earlier reported proposal that could have allowed Saudi uranium enrichment under a U.S.-controlled "black box" arrangement following a joint feasibility study. That earlier framework reportedly envisioned a multibillion-dollar, 30-year agreement but did not include the International Atomic Energy Agency’s Additional Protocol for enhanced inspections.

What the Numbers Show

The disparity between the estimated wealth of the Gulf royal families and their political structures forms the core of Sanders’ argument. By juxtaposing the $336 billion valuation of the UAE royal family with the label of "dictatorship," Sanders frames the U.S. alliance as economically motivated rather than ideologically aligned with democratic norms. The absence of a White House response leaves the administration’s strategic rationale for these ties unaddressed in the immediate public record.

Former White House communications director Anthony Scaramucci warned of a deepening political divide in the United States, arguing that the nation is effectively split into two distinct camps: "establishment America" and "populist America." In a post on X on Saturday, July 25, 2026, Scaramucci asserted that any leader who can successfully address both groups holds the key to reshaping American politics. He emphasized that approximately 80 million Americans voted for Donald Trump in the last presidential election, a figure he cited as evidence of widespread dissatisfaction with the status quo.

Scaramucci contended that the path to political victory lies not in choosing a side but in validating voter frustrations. "There are really two Americas right now, and whoever can speak to both of them wins," he wrote. In an accompanying video, he outlined a message he believes resonates with disaffected voters: an acknowledgment that previous policies failed the public. "I got that you’re unhappy. I got that. We screwed you with the inflation and we screwed you with our bad policies," Scaramucci said, suggesting that admitting fault regarding economic management could bridge the gap between the political elite and populist voters.

Criticism of Republican Policies

Despite his focus on bridging divides, Scaramucci directed criticism toward his own party, arguing that many voters feel betrayed by Republican leadership. He claimed that while voters were promised economic change, they instead witnessed policies that disproportionately benefited wealthy Americans. "There’s a whole big funnel of money that goes into the system. That’s very unfair to you," he said, highlighting perceptions of systemic inequality and corruption within the political establishment.

Broader Political Discourse on Inequality

Scaramucci’s comments align with broader criticisms of economic inequality voiced by other political figures. Hunter Biden recently argued that the U.S. is not naturally divided but is being pushed apart by powerful groups profiting from political conflict. Biden called for a "New New Deal" focused on healthcare, affordable housing, and reducing military conflicts, while also proposing that Americans receive a share of wealth generated by artificial intelligence.

Similarly, Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) criticized the current economic system, stating that "billionaires get richer while working families struggle." Sanders called for a grassroots movement to address inequality and criticized Donald Trump’s "Big Beautiful Bill," arguing it benefited the wealthy while reducing healthcare access for millions. These parallel critiques underscore a growing consensus across the political spectrum that economic disparity remains a central issue for American voters.

What the Numbers Show

The reference to 80 million Trump voters serves as a quantitative anchor for Scaramucci’s argument about populist dissatisfaction. This figure represents a significant portion of the electorate, suggesting that any political strategy ignoring this demographic faces substantial hurdles. The emphasis on inflation and policy failure indicates that economic performance remains a primary driver of voter sentiment, outweighing purely ideological alignments.