Earlier this week, President Donald Trump signed an executive order that guaranteed the security of the state of Qatar, a Middle Eastern country with a history of significant ties to terrorist groups like Hamas as well as the Taliban and the Muslim Brotherhood. The move is garnering concern by national security experts, who also acknowledge the regional security factors that are likely behind the decision.

Trump issued the EO on Monday, which states that the U.S. “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.” The EO went on to declare that “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 comes weeks after Israel launched an airstrike in the Qatari capital of Doha, targeting senior Hamas terrorist leaders. The attack failed to kill the targeted terrorists, which instead killed several lower-level Hamas members as well as a member of Qatar’s military. The U.S. later distanced itself from the attack, with the White House labeling it an “unfortunate incident” that did not advance the peace process.

Meanwhile, Trump’s decision to provide Qatar with a security guarantee has raised eyebrows among observers and national security experts. The editors at National Review pointed out Friday that Trump himself stated in 2017 that “the nation of Qatar has historically been a funder of terrorism at a very high level.” They went on to note that the country “materially supports” Hamas and the Taliban, is “a principal proponent of the Muslim Brotherhood and its loathsome Sunni Islamist ideology,” funds the Al Jazeera media empire that “propagates the sharia supremacist worldview,” and is an ally of the Shiite jihadist regime in Iran.

Human rights and religious freedom issues also abound in Qatar. As Arielle Del Turco, Family Research Council’s director of the Center for Religious Liberty, told The Washington Stand, “Qataris who convert to Christianity are in danger from their community. Christians face a great deal of restrictions, including those regarding evangelism and where they might worship. Furthermore — migrant workers — some of whom are Christian, are routinely treated inhumanely and forced to work in terrible conditions. Many of them end up dying on the job.”

Still, the Trump administration’s relationship with Qatar has grown in recent months for a number of reasons, both strategic and economic. The country is the site of Al Udeid Air Base, the largest U.S. base in the Middle East and the forward headquarters for U.S. Central Command. In addition, Trump signed an economic deal with Qatar’s Emir Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al-Thani in May valued at $1.2 trillion, including $96 billion with Qatar Airways to buy Boeing airliners and $38 billion in U.S. investment in Al Udeid Air Base and other “air defense and maritime security capabilities.”

Experts like Lt. Col. (Ret.) Bob Maginnis, who serves as FRC’s senior fellow for National Security, say that while there is a well-documented history of Qatar supporting Islamist extremist groups, the move could “strengthen both U.S. and Israeli security in a volatile moment.”

“Qatar is both problematic and indispensable,” he told The Washington Stand. “Doha has served as the key mediator in hostage negotiations with Hamas, and as a channel to other Islamist actors. Whatever one thinks of Qatari duplicity, the United States cannot ignore the fact that Qatar often holds the keys to keeping Americans and allies alive in Gaza and elsewhere. If Doha had pulled back after the Israeli strike, U.S. leverage would have shrunk. The order helps keep them at the table.”

Maginnis further observed that “by extending a conditional guarantee, Washington reassures Gulf allies and preserves coalition glue that ultimately benefits Israel.” In addition, “Washington can tie the security guarantee to verifiable steps: tightening terror finance, expelling Hamas leaders, policing its charities, and enforcing sanctions. If Qatar balks, the policy can be revoked.”

Even so, Maginnis went on to acknowledge that the move was risky. “It invites charges of executive overreach. It could embolden Qatar if not coupled with strict benchmarks. It could set precedents for other partners demanding similar guarantees. The White House must clarify the doctrine, define conditions, consult Congress, and emphasize the priority of counterterrorism.”

“If disciplined properly — anchored in deterrence, conditionality, and transparency — it could serve America’s interests and even Israel’s security,” Maginnis concluded. “The alternative, silence in the face of regional rupture, may have been worse.”