How does Qatar, the richest and smallest rentier regime in the world, challenge conventional explanations about how domestic politics works in the modern rentier state? Rentier states such as Qatar accrue their wealth from external sources, like the sale of oil and gas. Rentier state theory (RST) posits that this financial self-sufficiency gives the state much more political power over society than is normally seen in non-rentier states. This imbalance of power, so the theory goes, enables the rentier state to pursue domestic policies without the kinds of typical state-society interactions. In short, the conventional answer to the question of how domestic politics works in a rentier state is: The citizens bargain away their political voice in exchange for state-distributed wealth. While RST is still used regularly to explain the domestic politics of the Gulf Arab monarchies, more recent studies of domestic rentier politics have challenged this theory. In line with these analyses, this paper uses the case study of Qatar to contend that this quintessential rentier state’s domestic politics cannot be explained by RST’s focus on material transactions alone. Original, nationally representative survey data reveals that Qatari citizens are not as economically satisfied with top-down material distributions as RST predicts, due to deep tensions between different societal groups in Qatar that the top-down distribution of wealth exacerbates, rather than smooths over. What else, then, is needed to make domestic politics work in Qatar? This paper looks closely at an area of study overlooked by classic RST: top-down narratives of identity and nationalism to bolster state legitimacy. Qatar expends huge resources on nation-building narratives that target citizens and expatriate residents alike, as it cultivates popular support for its domestic policy agenda. Yet these efforts are by no means met with unquestioning buy-in. There is no more striking example of this than the new National Museum of Qatar, where state-promoted definitions of heritage, tribalism, and belonging contrast with deep societal concerns. Utilizing a mix of survey data, fieldwork, and ethnographic interviews, the paper builds on the unexpected economic dissatisfaction among citizens to highlight the importance of national identity—and the ongoing contestations between the state and multiple societal groups over the definition of this identity. In sum, the findings presented suggest that making domestic politics work in a rentier state may require a give-and-take between state and society that far transcends the rentier bargain, expanding our knowledge both empirically and theoretically.