Liz Wheeler calls out a pattern she sees on the right: influencers posting polished praise of Qatar while glossing over the regime’s harsh laws and human-rights record. She questions whether these posts are authentic endorsements or soft power messaging dressed as personal travel notes. This piece highlights the clash between public trust, personal safety, and the odd optics of conservatives applauding a state that criminalizes the behaviors some of these influencers live openly at home.
Americans tune in to voices they believe are honest and unfiltered, and Wheeler makes clear she sees loyalty to truth as the baseline. When figures who say they stand for conservative values start posting glowing dispatches about Qatar, she feels obliged to probe. That instinct comes from a simple idea: trust matters, especially when national interests and human rights are on the line.
Wheeler singles out a number of right-leaning influencers whose posts struck her as overly polished and oddly timed. “These people, who are ostensibly conservatives, began to post on X very long, flowery defenses of Qatar and the Qatari government that didn’t seem to be quite authentic. It didn’t seem to be quite organic,” she says, calling attention to tone and timing that look less like honest reflection and more like a PR campaign.
One of those influencers wrote, “My first trip to Qatar has been eye-opening. This is a very different Middle East than I experienced as a U.S. Army soldier deployed during Operation Iraqi Freedom,” and used the trip to recast his impressions in unusually flattering terms. That same post went on to praise the Qatari government and ended up paired with a posed balcony photo. When a message reads like a promotional blurb, skepticism is warranted, especially from commentators who build trust by speaking plainly.
https://x.com/robsmithonline/status/1995519109610516720
Near the same spot in the original thread, a visual embed sits where readers can judge the tone for themselves . The next paragraph quoted a follow-up in which the influencer said he wanted to ask tough questions and accept any criticism that might follow. That defensive framing doesn’t erase the fact that the overall post reads like a soft sell of a hostile regime.
Another influencer’s caption was almost comically short: “So beautiful can’t wait to come back,” written under a balcony shot that mirrors the other posts. When that post got wide attention, she doubled down with a combative reply and defended Qatar’s global profile. She wrote, “I genuinely can’t believe how clueless some people are. Qatar hosts Formula 1 and people from all over the world fly in for it. Tourists, models, celebrities, fans. It is a massive international destination.”
The same influencer added a cruder line about feeling safe there: “And honestly it was amazing to finally feel safe and not be surrounded by homeless crackheads and criminals for once. I could actually relax and enjoy myself. Maybe if you salty losers left your bedrooms and visited a place before obsessively talking about it, you wouldn’t sound so chronically online and jealous,” which intensified the backlash. That blunt tone may win likes, but it doesn’t address the more serious issues at stake.
Wheeler presses a direct, worrying point: why are people who live openly in ways criminalized by Qatari law praising the place so effusively? She highlights that same-sex relations are illegal there and that evangelism outside Islam is criminalized, noting the obvious tension when influencers who are gay or openly Christian cheerlead for a regime that punishes those identities. The conflict isn’t just moral, it’s legal and practical for citizens who value religious freedom and liberty.
Beyond individual contradictions, Wheeler points to structural problems in Qatar’s system: a two-tiered justice framework that treats elites differently than ordinary people. “They have a two-tier justice system, a justice system that oppresses regular people and lets off the elites, holds them to an easier standard, which is pretty evident,” she says, arguing that the glowing reviews help shield the powerful from scrutiny. That protection can translate into influence that distorts public conversation and softens criticism of abuses.
Her tone is blunt and unapologetic: conservatives should not be cheerleading for regimes that undermine freedoms Americans claim to protect. When public figures act as unofficial promoters for foreign governments, they owe their audiences transparency and explanation, not polished endorsements that raise the question of influence. Trust is earned by honesty, not by acting as a billboard for a country that enforces laws at odds with basic American liberties.
