Melania Trump meets with Russian and Ukrainian representatives at the White House
November 5, 2026, 4:45 pm
Source: Meduza
U.S. first lady Melania Trump met with representatives of Russia and Ukraine at the White House.
Ombudsman Yana Lantratova and presidential special envoy Kirill Dmitriev represented Russia at the meeting. Ombudsman Dmytro Lubinets and Davyd Arakhamia, head of the Servant of the People faction in the Verkhovna Rada, represented Ukraine.
Officials announced the meeting after a humanitarian operation in Oleshky, in the Kherson region, during which Lantratova and Lubinets helped evacuate several hundred people. Both sides said Melania Trump played the key mediating role in organizing the mission.
A temporary ceasefire was declared for the duration of the humanitarian operation and held for several days, marking the first such pause since the full-scale war in Ukraine began.
Member of the State Duma of Russia who voted in favour of Federal Law No. 75577-8 “On the ratification of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the Russian Federation and the Luhansk People’s Republic” and/or Federal Law No. 75578-8 “On the ratification of the Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Mutual Assistance between the Russian Federation and the Donetsk People’s Republic”. In so doing, the member endorsed President Putin’s decision to recognise the Donetsk People’s Republic and the Luhansk People’s Republic as independent states, thereby providing support for policies and/or actions which destabilise Ukraine and/or undermine or threaten the territorial integrity, sovereignty or independence of Ukraine. The trust services sanctions were imposed on 21/03/2023.
Yana Lantratova, suspected in Ukraine of involvement in the deportation of Ukrainian children from the occupied Kherson region, has become the Commissioner for Human Rights in Russia, according to the decision by the State Duma on May 14, 2026.
Russia is using Ukraine’s children to win its occupation – and the wider war
Published: October 5, 2026 3.27pm BST
A year or so after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the city of Murmansk in Russia’s Arctic north-west marked its annual regional day with a celebration for children. Alongside the sons and daughters of Russian soldiers stood children taken from the occupied Prymorskyi district of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia region.
Ukraine’s authorities have verified 20,651 cases of children deported or forcibly displaced to Russia and Belarus since 2022. Some estimates, including figures shared by Russian officials themselves, run as high as 744,000. As of September 2026, just 2,644 Ukrainian children have been returned.
The International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for the Russian leader, Vladimir Putin, and his children’s commissioner, Maria Lvova-Belova, in March 2023 for their roles in this campaign.
But the Where Are Our People? project, which I work alongside, has identified at least 47 Russian and Belarusian individuals directly involved in the deportations. These people range from regional governors to business executives. Only some of them are under western sanctions.
Born on 25 October 1984, Commissioner for Children’s Rights
in the Office of the President of the Russian Federation.
Accused LastName
Alekseyevna Lvova-Belova
Accused FirstName
Maria
Charges
Allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation (under articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute). The crimes were allegedly committed in Ukrainian occupied territory at least from 24 February 2022. There are reasonable grounds to believe that Ms Lvova-Belova bears individual criminal responsibility for the aforementioned crimes, for having committed the acts directly, jointly with others and/or through others (article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute).
Inessa hugs her son Vitaly after the bus delivering him and more than a dozen other children back from Russian-held territory arrived in Kyiv on March 22, 2023. Photo: SERGEI CHUZAVKOV / AFP via Getty Images
US unveils sanctions on ICC in move court condemns as ‘assault on rule of law’
Image caption,The ICC said it would not be “deterred” by the sanctions
By Tom Bateman, State department correspondent, Anna Holligan, Reporting from in The Hague, and Florence Freeman
Published9 October 2026
The Trump administration has unveiled sweeping sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC) in a significant acceleration of its attempt to “dismantle” what it sees as a “rogue” institution.
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio said the measures – which include a ban on US entities making transactions with the ICC – were intended to “defend US sovereignty” and accused the court of seeking to prosecute Americans.
The ICC said the measures were an assault on the rule of law and the foundations of the international legal order.
The announcement came just hours after former ICC judge Navi Pillay was awarded the 2026 Nobel Peace Prize for her efforts to promote peace and international law.
The US has already sanctioned 17 of the ICC’s judges and officials, but this move sanctions the court itself as an institution and is intended to collapse its ability to operate financially.
However, the US has provided a six month grace period before some of these latest sanctions kick in, meaning member states can keep paying for its operations – a move Washington says is to allow countries time to negotiate a “solution to address” US concerns.
UN Secretary General Antonio Guterres called the US decision “a serious blow to our collective pursuit of international criminal justice, of which the ICC is a key pillar”.
But White House spokesperson Steven Cheung called him a “Trump OG” in a post on X.
“There is no bigger advocate for the Trump agenda than Stephen, and he will help the Administration deliver on monumental victories for the rest of this historic second term,” he said.
An adviser to the president since his first term, Miller has garnered a reputation as a fierce political operator willing to push the boundaries of the law to enact Trump’s sweeping agenda.
He was a driving force behind the White House’s aggressive immigration policy, including the administration’s deadly enforcement surge into American cities that saw federal agents kill two US citizens in Minnesota early this year.
Miller has also been a driving force behind efforts at the White House to crack down on what the Trump administration has framed as left-wing political extremism. He was a chief architect behind a presidential national security memo known as NSPM-7, which laid out the groundwork to designate left-leaning groups as domestic terrorists.
Source: Huffington Post 7 Nov 2026
Some background to Katie Miller:
Katie’s career spans from her first role as press assistant to the National Republican Senatorial Committee to press secretary for the former U.S. Senator from Montana Steve Daines, according to her LinkedIn.
She was deputy press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security from 2017 to 2019, affiliating herself with controversial DHS Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen, who implemented Trump’s “zero tolerance” policy and family separation at the border. Katie then became communications director for the former U.S. Senator from Arizona Martha McSally.
Katie began her role as press secretary for Pence in the fall of 2019, before transitioning to communications director the following year — a position that she held until 2021, after falling out with Pence over disagreements, per an X post.
In December 2024, Katie was one of the first advisers named to Trump’s Elon Musk-led Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE). In a statement to The New York Times, White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt praised her role in the initiative, saying that Katie was “a critical reason DOGE was able to get off the ground.”
She held the position with DOGE until May 2025, when she left the advisory position to work full-time in the private sector for Musk — who left DOGE around the same time — CNN reported.
They met through work and mutual friends
………..
Stephen and Katie were introduced when they were both working at the White House in the spring of 2018; Stephen was Trump’s senior policy adviser and Katie was press secretary for the Department of Homeland Security.
At the time, ICE and DHS were working on a “zero tolerance” policy at the border — leading to widespread family separation — and Stephen and Katie often spoke over the phone about their work, but never met in person, per The New York Times.
One former DHS official told Vanity Fair in August 2020 that Stephen often tried to get involved in communications with DHS, and “He had this thing about calling everyone and trying to get the answer he wanted,” which is how he reportedly met Katie.
“It was very on brand, the relationship,” Stephen told Lara Trump, Trump’s daughter-in-law, on Fox News in May 2025. “We were on conference calls every day on border security.”
They later met in person through mutual friends in the spring of 2018, per The New York Times, and were engaged just over a year later in the fall of 2019.
They married in 2020 at a Trump hotel in Washington, D.C.
The Democratic perspective on this choice of Stephen Miller to Chief of Staff:
“In a way, the president did a great favor to Democrats, as now they know there is little value to extending an olive branch to the White House next January,” he said. “If Trump wants to pass things, this is a terrible choice. If he wants to engage in combat with Congress, then Stephen Miller fits the bill.”
Republican strategist Matt Klink told Newsweek the choice reveals that Trump “plans to fight.”
Melania Was Reportedly Upset Her Friends Got Deported, and Turned Trump Against Miller
The First Lady complained her friends were being caught in the administration’s deportation dragnet, leading Trump to say Stephen Miller was going “too far.”
WARSAW — The battle over who rules Poland is being fought in front of a cream-colored palace in central Warsaw — surrounded by police and protesters — that houses the country’s top constitutional court.
Liberal, pro-EU Prime Minister Donald Tusk wants to roll back changes to the Constitutional Tribunal made by the previous nationalist Law and Justice (PiS) party government, while President Karol Nawrocki is fighting — even physically — to keep the PiS-aligned judges in charge.
The government insists the court must be overhauled to restore rule of law and conform with EU norms on impartiality, while Nawrocki’s supporters accuse Tusk of backing a coup.
Police deployed during stand-off over control of top Poland court
Image caption,Officers were faced down by critics of the move outside the Constitutional Tribunal in Warsaw
ByAdam Easton
Warsaw
Published30 October 2026
Updated 31 October 2026
Riot police have been deployed at Poland’s Constitutional Court amid an escalating stand-off between the government and the court’s top judges.
The row pits the government of Prime Minister Donald Tusk against his predecessors from the right-wing Law and Justice (PiS).
The police intervention came after Justice Minister Waldemar Żurek said he had requested stripping the court’s President Bogdan Święczkowski and Vice-President Bartłomiej Sochański of their immunity from prosecution to bring criminal charges against them.
Tusk has vowed to depoliticise the judiciary, and on Friday defended the move as PiS supporters gathered outside the court premises in Warsaw in protest.
With Donald Tusk’s coalition vulnerable, Poland could swing sharply right in 2027. But the fragmented far-right is trapped between bashing Brussels, and having a coherent enough EU policy to be taken seriously by voters.
Polish nationalists demonstrating against European Union in Warsaw on May 1, 2019. (Alamy/Szymon Mucha)
ARPACZ, Poland — Across the European Union, far-right parties such as France’s National Rally and Germany’s Alternative for Deutschland are coalescing and building strength, as they aim to win elections and enter governments this year or next.
But the situation on the right in Poland is different. Instead of aligning around a single message to take on the political mainstream, four different right-wing parties are in an all-out turf war over the future of the Polish right.
The issue that’s dividing them the most — and could be the greatest electoral liability come 2027 — is the European Union. The furthest right parties are calling for Polexit, while right parties closer to the center are choosing to critique specific EU policies without calls to leave the bloc.
That tension has put the Polish right in a difficult position — carry an anti-EU position that shows it is not part of the mainstream and is ready to protect Polish national interests, such as refusing to comply with EU climate or migration laws, but one serious enough that other parties would still be willing to form a coalition with them.
“You start having this kind of a very awkward choice in Poland between a mainstream, which you kind of despise, and lunatics, which you are simply afraid of,” Spasimir Domaradzki, a political scientist at the University of Warsaw, said. “Parties will be searching to find this balance between frustration with the government and pretending to be a bit more reasonable.”
Typhoons batter East Asia as El Niño makes Pacific ‘burn with fever’
Image caption,Fishermen return to sea under a crimson sky in August after China’s Jiangsu province is hit by Super Typhoon Dolphin
ByJoel Guinto, Reporting fromSingapore, Kurumi Mori, Tokyo correspondent and Darren Bett, Lead weather presenter
Published4 November 2026
Wild weather is a way of life for people living along the coast in the Philippines, Taiwan, China and Japan. But the last few months have been extraordinary.
A wave of intense and, at times, unpredictable storms exacerbated by the El Niño weather pattern has killed dozens, shuttered major airports and wiped out crops and infrastructure across a swathe of East Asia.
In October, nearly all of Taiwan shut down as a monster storm big enough to engulf the island of 23 million roared towards its north-eastern coast. Equivalent to a category five hurricane, Typhoon Champi’s 295km/h (193mph) winds had the power to flatten homes and whip up destructive waves.
Thankfully it did not make landfall in Taiwan, skirting past the island while dousing it in rain. But it had far-reaching impacts: hundreds of flights were cancelled in Hong Kong, Taiwan and Japan. In the Philippines’ Batanes archipelago, seaside highways shut as huge waves crashed onto the shore, and in southern Japan’s Okinawa islands, power was cut to 15,000 homes.
El Niño is a naturally occurring climate phenomenon in which warm waters pooling in the eastern Pacific and altered wind patterns drive extreme weather events around the world.
It happens around every two to seven years, lasting for around a year. This year’s El Niño, which the UK Met Office has forecast to be the “strongest in living memory”, is likely to last until February or March.
In June, Japan watched two storms – Typhoon Mekkhala and Severe Tropical Storm Higos – race towards its eastern coast simultaneously, forcing one million people to evacuate. In July, Tropical Storm Narra grazed China’s southern coast along Guangxi, submerging villages and displacing tens of thousands.
Somalia faces an increased risk of severe flooding as El Niño conditions are expected to bring above-normal rainfall. According to IOM and DRC’s joint projections, more than 800,000 people are at risk of displacement by flooding between October 2026 and January 2027, with an impact on their lives, homes, livelihoods and access to essential services.
IOM is working with the Somali Disaster Management Agency (SoDMA), local authorities and communities to strengthen flood preparedness and early response. Efforts include flood risk assessments, early warning messages, community awareness, evacuation planning, disaster risk reduction training and pre-positioning emergency supplies.
With communities already affected by drought and displacement, urgent support is needed to scale up preparedness, protect vulnerable families and ensure people can move to safety before flooding strikes. Early action is critical to saving lives, protecting livelihoods and reducing the humanitarian impact of El Niño in Somalia.
Assessment of IDP site-level risks and household level readiness ahead of the anticipated 2026 EL NINO
The New York Times reports that just 20 donors — roughly 0.00001 percent of adults, i.e. one ten-millionth of the population — have already pumped about $2 billion into this election, or about 15 percent of total campaign spending.
These donors are overwhelmingly supporting Republicans. Here’s a graphical representation of the megadonors and their contributions:
How did such a small group — which happens to include some truly terrible people — gain so much power? Part of the answer is that the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens’ United decision opened the floodgates for vast sums of money to flow into politics. The larger part of the answer is that the vast power of the extremely wealthy stems from the vast concentration of wealth in their hands, which is literally more than an order of magnitude greater than their share of wealth a few decades ago. Here is Realtime inequality’s estimate of the share of total wealth held by the top 0.00001% of the population, roughly corresponding to the megadonor class:
Paul Krugman,Substack, Nov 2nd 2026
‘Texas isn’t for sale’: James Talarico takes on Elon Musk after Ken Paxton’s defeat
American trading billionaire Jeff Yass gives $110 million to Republicans for midterms
Trading billionaire and early ByteDance investor Jeff Yass has become one of the biggest donors of the U.S. midterms, giving Republicans about $110 million.
One Nation is the issue advocacy arm of the Senate Leadership Fund, a super PAC associated with Republican leadership in the U.S. Senate. 1 Formerly known as the Alliance for America’s Future, One Nation claims to advocate for right-of-center policy towards the economy and defense spending. 2
In 2024, Singer, an 81-year-old with a net worth of $6.7 billion, donated $5 million to Make America Great Again Inc., Trump’s Super PAC. Singer donated tens of millions more in the 2024 cycle to support Trump’s allies, including $37 million to support the election of Republicans to Congress. He also donated an undisclosed amount to fund Trump’s second transition.
Singer is also a major pro-Israel donor, with his foundation having donated more than $3.3 million to groups like the Birthright Israel Foundation, the Israel America Academic Exchange, Boundless Israel, and others in 2021, according to tax filings.
In November 2025, less than two months before Trump’s operation to take over Venezuela, Singer’s investment firm, Elliott Investment Management, inked a highly fortuitous deal.
Three previously unknown donors gave $26 million to Trump-aligned dark money group
Feb 26, 2026
Media Contact
Georgia Lyon
Media Relations Manage
An Issue One examination of tax filings has revealed three previously unknown donors who gave more than $26 million to Securing American Greatness, a dark money group that supported President Donald Trump’s election in 2024 and has since helped advance his policy agenda. One of these donors is connected to the cryptocurrency industry while the other two are dark money groups that do not disclose their donors.
“Dark money groups like Securing American Greatness allow wealthy donors and special interests to buy influence with politicians through huge contributions and to do so anonymously,” said Issue One Director of Money in Politics Reform Michael Beckel. “When money flows into secretive dark money groups from other secretive dark money groups, the public is left with no meaningful information whatsoever regarding who is working behind the scenes to influence elections and gain favorable policy outcomes. It’s long past time for these shell games to stop and for the public to be able to fully and transparently follow the money in politics.”
Securing American Greatness was launched in March 2024 by Trump allies including Taylor Budowich — who, for most of last year, worked in Trump’s White House as deputy chief of staff. It raised $275 million in 2024, as previously reported by news outlets including Bloomberg and the New York Times. This massive war chest was bankrolled by fewer than 100 donors and donor organizations, which each gave sums ranging in size from $2,500 to $35 million.
The Bitcoin Advocacy Project formed in 2022 to educate lawmakers and the public about the cryptocurrency Bitcoin and grow a pro-crypto coalition of voters. The American Prosperity Alliance and MAGA Action Inc. are both Trump-aligned conservative advocacy organizations that also formed in 2022. As nonprofits registered under Sec. 501(c)(4) of the tax code, they are not required to disclose their donors. Like Securing American Greatness, MAGA Action Inc. was also founded by Taylor Budowich.
The only other known donor to Securing American Greatness is telecommunications company Qualcomm, which voluntarily reported that it gave $1 million sometime between September 30, 2024, and March 30, 2025, as first reported by Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW).
Ahead of the 2024 presidential election, Securing American Greatness invested more than $67 million into pro-Trump super PACs, including more than $52 million into the Make America Great Again Inc super PAC, a sum that represented about $1 of every $8 the super PAC raised.
The Art of Influence: Koch Brothers and Political Funding
The Koch brothers’ foray into political funding began in earnest in the 1980s. Motivated by a libertarian ideology grounded in free-market capitalism, they sought to promote policies aligned with their beliefs. Initially, their contributions were modest, primarily supporting candidates who championed deregulation and tax cuts. However, as their wealth grew—Koch Industries, founded in 1940 by their father Fred Koch, grew into one of the largest privately held companies in the U.S.—so did their political ambitions. By the early 2000s, the Koch brothers were making significant donations to both Republican candidates and organizations, establishing themselves as key players in the political arena. One pivotal moment in their political journey was their involvement in the 2010 midterm elections, coinciding with the Supreme Court’s landmark ruling in Citizens United v. FEC. This decision allowed for unlimited independent expenditures in political campaigns, effectively unleashing a torrent of corporate money into American politics. The Koch brothers seized this opportunity, launching the “Koch Network,” a vast web of donors and organizations aimed at influencing political outcomes and policy discussions.
Funding Political Campaigns
The Koch brothers have been strategic in their political contributions, focusing on candidates who align with their vision of limited government and free-market principles. They have funded a range of political campaigns, from local races to presidential elections. Notably, they supported candidates like Scott Walker in Wisconsin and Marco Rubio during the 2016 Republican primaries, seeking to advance their agenda through the election of like-minded officials. Their financial influence extends beyond direct contributions. The Koch brothers have invested heavily in super PACs and dark money groups, which can operate without disclosing their donors. Organizations like Americans for Prosperity (AFP), founded by the Koch brothers, have played a crucial role in mobilizing grassroots support for various political initiatives and candidates. AFP has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on advertising, voter outreach, and lobbying efforts, making it one of the most influential political entities in the United States.
Crypto Investor Twins Gave MAGA Inc. PAC $10 Million After Regulatory Win
The donations came after the Trump administration moved to vacate an enforcement action against their crypto exchange.By Freddy Brewster & Katya Schwenk , TheLeverPublishedJuly 23, 2026
At a time when the American public is expressing unprecedented levels of distrust in the Israeli government, Congress just proposed tying the U.S. to the Israeli military more than ever before.
Buried in the House’s version of the 2027 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) released on Tuesday, is section 224, entitled “United States-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative.” The provision would arguably do more to intertwine the U.S. military with the Israeli military than the more than $200 billion (inflation adjusted) in military assistance Israel has received from the U.S. since its founding in 1948.
WASHINGTON, Nov 3 (Reuters) – President Donald Trump on Tuesday said he made a deal with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu that Washington would stop $4 billion in funding to Israel after the end of this year.
On November 3, 2026—Election Day—President Donald Trump told Fox & Friends that he and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had agreed months earlier to end roughly $4 billion in annual U.S. funding by the close of the year. He described Israel as “a very thriving country” that no longer needed the money, framed the change as removing a “bad talking point” used by critics, and noted that Israel could still purchase American weapons, with further help available “if they need it.”
Netanyahu’s office responded on November 6 without denying the claim. It cast the shift as a deliberate move “from aid to partnership” and “mutual investment,” emphasizing Israel’s strong economy and the relationship’s adaptability. A PMO spokesman said Netanyahu had been working with Trump on the transition.
The existing 10-year Memorandum of Understanding (signed in 2016, running fiscal years 2019–2028) provides about $3.8 billion annually—$3.3 billion in Foreign Military Financing (mostly for U.S. weapons purchases) plus $500 million for cooperative missile defense. It formally expires at the end of September 2028. Israeli President Isaac Herzog and some defense and finance officials reportedly described Trump’s timeline as a surprise (“like a bolt from the blue”), and public statements indicate the precise legal mechanics of any early cutoff remain under discussion. Formal talks on a successor framework began in June 2026; the stated direction is expanded joint research, development, co-production, and reciprocal investment rather than unrestricted grants.
How Military Integration Is Positioned as an Offset
The integration is not presented as a pure dollar-for-dollar cash substitute for the $3.8 billion grants. Instead, both sides describe it as the mechanism that sustains (and in some respects deepens) the security relationship after pure aid ends. Key elements include:
Cooperative missile defense programs: Iron Dome, David’s Sling, and Arrow systems have long involved U.S. co-development and co-production requirements. Portions of interceptors and components are produced in the United States (with Israeli matching funds in some cases). These programs continue to receive dedicated funding in defense bills even as broader FMF is targeted for phase-out. Co-production keeps U.S. industry involved and creates mutual technical dependencies.
FY2027 NDAA provisions (including the U.S.-Israel Defense Technology Cooperation Initiative, often referenced as Section 219 in the House version): The House-passed bill authorized roughly $750 million for U.S.-Israel cooperative programs (an increase over the prior year), covering missile defense, counter-unmanned systems, subterranean operations, and emerging technologies. It directs the Pentagon to designate an executive agent to coordinate bilateral RDT&E, identify Israeli-origin technologies for potential integration into U.S. systems, support joint ventures and licensing, and establish frameworks for U.S.-based co-production and manufacturing. Covered areas explicitly include AI, autonomous systems, quantum technology, directed energy, cyber/electronic warfare, biotechnology, and defense industrial base cooperation. Similar language has appeared in prior years; this version formalizes coordination and expands the scope.
Broader industrial and technology ties: Israeli firms and co-developed systems already feed into U.S. programs. Advocates argue this gives the U.S. access to proven technologies (e.g., in missile defense, counter-tunneling, or counter-drone capabilities) while supporting American manufacturing jobs through co-production. Critics note that once systems are co-developed or co-produced, supply chains, data-sharing arrangements, and industrial partnerships create lasting entanglements that are harder to unwind than annual appropriations.
In short, the planned model redirects resources into joint projects that both countries can describe as mutually beneficial investment. Cash grants shrink or end; shared R&D, co-production lines, technology insertion, and industrial partnerships expand. This is the explicit offset path described in reporting on the post-MOU talks
On April 17, 2026, a group of Syrian billionaires with deep ties to the Assad regime met privately in Washington D.C., invoking the name of former U.S. President Donald Trump to seek intervention in lifting sanctions that have frozen billions in Syrian assets abroad. Their appeal, framed as a humanitarian gesture to ease civilian suffering, has instead ignited a firestorm over the weaponization of personal diplomacy and the resurgence of transactional foreign policy in an era when global markets remain hypersensitive to Middle East instability. This isn’t just about Syria’s frozen wealth—it’s a test of whether the post-Trump international order can resist the pull of patronage networks that bypass institutions, and what that means for investor confidence in emerging markets from Beirut to Baku.
The Sanctions Web: How Syrian Assets Became a Geopolitical Lever
Since 2011, the U.S., EU, and UN have imposed layered sanctions on Syria targeting the Assad regime’s revenue streams, including oil exports, financial transactions, and the assets of designated individuals. Over $10 billion in Syrian state and elite-held assets remain frozen in Western banks, according to the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. These measures were designed to pressure Damascus into political concessions, but they’ve also crippled legitimate trade, worsened humanitarian conditions, and pushed the regime toward illicit economies like Captagon production. The Syrian billionaires’ ask isn’t for regime legitimacy—it’s for access to liquidity that could stabilize their own holdings while indirectly bolstering the state’s capacity to function.
What makes this moment distinct is the explicit invocation of Trump’s name. During his presidency, Trump signaled openness to engaging with Assad—a stark departure from Obama-era red lines—and his inner circle included figures who viewed sanctions as blunt instruments harmful to U.S. Business interests. Though no evidence suggests Trump is directly involved in these 2026 meetings, the mere association carries weight in circles where personal loyalty still trumps protocol. As one former U.S. Treasury official noted off the record, “In certain networks, a name drop isn’t nostalgia—it’s a signal that the classic rules of engagement might be reactivatable.”
Geopolitical Ripple Effects: From Beirut Banking to Global Supply Chains
The implications extend far beyond Damascus. Syrian elites have long used Lebanese banks as conduits for moving capital, a practice that intensified after 2019 when Syria’s own banking system collapsed under sanctions pressure. Any easing of restrictions could trigger a surge in cross-border flows, testing Lebanon’s fragile financial recovery and potentially reigniting tensions with the IMF, which has tied its $3 billion bailout to strict capital controls. Meanwhile, European energy firms eyeing Syrian phosphate reserves—a key ingredient in fertilizers and a potential alternative to Russian supplies—could see renewed interest if sanctions loosen, altering agricultural supply chains across the Mediterranean.
More broadly, this episode underscores a growing trend: the use of personal diplomacy to circumvent multilateral frameworks. When high-net-worth individuals from sanctioned states leverage former U.S. Presidents’ names to access Washington, it erodes the predictability that global investors rely on. “We’re seeing a shift from rules-based to relationship-based access,” warned Dr. Lina Khatib, Director of the Middle East and North Africa Programme at Chatham House, in a recent briefing.
“When asset holders believe they can bypass institutional channels through personal connections, it undermines the very sanctions regimes designed to enforce accountability—and that creates market volatility no hedge fund can model.”
This dynamic isn’t unique to Syria; similar patterns have emerged in Venezuela and Myanmar, where diaspora elites seek political intermediaries to unlock frozen wealth.
Historical Echoes: When Personal Diplomacy Trumped Policy
The Trump administration’s approach to foreign aid and sanctions was often transactional, exemplified by the 2020 decision to suspend $70 million in health aid to Zimbabwe over minerals and data concerns—a move later reversed but indicative of a broader willingness to tie assistance to bilateral concessions. While current U.S. Policy under the Biden administration has sought to reassert normative frameworks, the persistence of backchannel appeals reveals the durability of Trump-era norms in certain elite circles. As noted in a 2023 Brookings Institution analysis, “The legacy of personalistic foreign policy isn’t in treaties signed, but in the expectations it created among foreign actors about what leverage looks like.”
This context matters as Syria’s economic future is increasingly tied to regional reconstruction efforts. The World Bank estimates that rebuilding Syria will require $250–$400 billion over the next decade—a figure far beyond what Damascus can raise domestically. If sanctioned assets remain locked, reconstruction will rely on alternative financiers, including Gulf states and China, potentially shifting Syria’s long-term alignment away from Europe and toward Beijing-led initiatives. Conversely, any sanctioned asset release—even conditional—could accelerate Western re-engagement, but only if paired with verifiable political steps, a condition the billionaires’ current appeal notably lacks.
IndicatorPre-20112023 EstimateSourceSyrian GDP (Billion USD)$60.2$6.2World BankFrozen Syrian Assets (USD)$0$10+ billionCarnegie EndowmentSyria’s Share of Global Phosphate Exports~5%<0.1% (sanctions-impacted)USGS Mineral Resources ProgramLebanon-Syria Cross-Border Deposits (Est.)$20–25 billion (pre-2019)$3–5 billion (2023)IMF Staff Report
The Real Test: Can Institutions Withstand the Pull of Patronage?
What’s at stake here isn’t just Syria’s balance sheets—it’s the credibility of the sanctions architecture itself. If personal appeals succeed where structured diplomacy has stalled, it risks creating a two-tier system: one for those with access to former presidents’ names, and another for everyone else subject to the full force of coercive economics. That distinction matters for global markets, which depend on consistent rule application to assess country risk. As CSIS fellow Jon Alterman observed in a March 2026 panel, “The danger isn’t that sanctions fail—it’s that they succeed unpredictably, rewarding connections over compliance.”
For now, the Biden administration has not indicated any shift in policy. Treasury sanctions remain in place, and State Department officials continue to tie any relief to irreversible political progress toward a UN-facilitated solution. But the mere fact that these meetings occurred—and that they were framed as viable—suggests a deeper erosion in the norms that once made such appeals unthinkable. In an age where geopolitical risk is priced in real time, the perception of backdoor access can move markets as surely as an actual policy shift.
Looking Ahead: What So for Global Investors and Policy Makers
The Syrian billionaires’ gamble reflects a broader calculation among elites in sanctioned states: that in a multipolar world, personal networks may outlast institutional frameworks. Whether that bet pays off remains uncertain. But the attempt itself reveals a truth often overlooked in sanctions debates—that their effectiveness depends not just on design, but on perceived legitimacy and uniformity of application. When those erode, so does the deterrent value.
For global investors, the message is clear: monitor not just official statements, but the quieter currents of influence where names are dropped and favors are implied. For policymakers, the challenge is to reinforce that sanctions are not bargaining chips, but tools of accountability—whose power diminishes the moment they become negotiable over coffee in a Washington townhouse. The true test of the post-Trump order isn’t whether it can resist a name drop—it’s whether it can convince the world that it doesn’t need to.
Editor-in-Chief Prize-winning journalist with over 20 years of international news experience. Alexandra leads the editorial team, ensuring every story meets the highest standards of accuracy and journalistic integrity.CategoriesWorld
Then we see Jared Kushner and wife Ivanka Trump receiving Syrian billionaire funding for the Driatic pristine Albanian island project:
The Adriatic Grift: How Jared Kushner, Syrian Billionaires, and a Compliant White House Carved Up a Country
That framing, of course, belongs to his wife. On May 31, 2026, Ivanka Trump told a podcast audience that she and Kushner had “discovered” Sazan while sailing off a friend’s boat in the Mediterranean, as though the island had been waiting in darkness for someone with a private equity firm and sovereign wealth fund backing to illuminate it. In a country where Sazan had been public land for generations, that language landed like a verdict. It told Albanians, in the clearest possible terms, what kind of arrangement was being imposed on them.
Tens of thousands of them took to the streets.
The island was never for sale. That was always the point.
And
The network of companies and Qatari billionaires hiding behind Sazan, documents reveal the behind-the-scenes of Jared Kushner’s project
strategic investor status from the Albanian government.
The Al-Khayyat brothers are household names in the Middle East. They run the conglomerate Power International Holding (PIH) with activities in construction, real estate, agriculture and healthcare. PIH was one of the main contractors in building the infrastructure for the Qatar 2022 World Cup.
An investigation by The New York Times, published on April 19, 2026, pointed out the connection between the Al-Khayyat brothers, who are of Syrian origin, and Kushner as well as other members of the Trump family.
Regarding investments in Albania, Ramez Al-Khayyat confirmed to the NYT the partnership with Kushner.
“We are investing in the holding company to make sure it has sufficient capital. So it is a joint venture between the two companies, and we are actually managing it together,” he told the New York Times.
Albania’s Sazan Island has been fought over for millennia
Strategically situated where the Adriatic and Ionian Seas meet, a small rocky outcrop has once again become an object of desire for the wealthy and powerful.
Albania’s Sazan Island has served for decades as a military stronghold.
Hektor Pustina/AP
ByNoah Kirsch
Published June 12, 2026
For thousands of years, world powers have traded control over a small, lush isle off the southwestern coast of Albania. Sazan Island, a 2.2 square-mile spit of land, lies within the Strait of Otranto, a narrow channel separating Italy and Albania, and has served as a crucial base for powers seeking to dominate the Adriatic and Ionian Seas.
There are no permanent residents on Sazan, and yet it has played a key role in Albanian history for more than a century.
“The island no doubt has a long, complicated history,” says Theodora Dragostinova, a professor of history at The Ohio State University who researches the Balkans. With its strategic location at the edge of Albania’s Bay of Vlorë, different empires—including the Romans, Venetians, British, and Ottomans—have each controlled it.
Ishulli i Sazanit (Sazan Island): A Military History
Five point seven square kilometers of fortified rock at the mouth of the Bay of Vlore have been Ottoman, Italian, Soviet, and Albanian inside a single century.
By Enri Zhulati
National Albanian Registry · 501(c)(3) editorial deskCopy link
Albanian America is still being written down — by us. The Census records 230,000 of us; the real number is closer to a million. Add your name to the count in 2 minutes.Be counted →
Ishulli i Sazanit (Sazan Island) is a small place that has held a disproportionate amount of 20th-century history. The island covers roughly 5.7 square kilometers — about 2.2 square miles — at the mouth of the Gjiri i Vlores (Bay of Vlore), where the Albanian coastline turns the corner from the Adriatic into the Ionian. It is the largest island in Albania, and on most maps of the Balkans it is a single dot (Wikipedia: Sazan Island).
The dot has been Ottoman, then Italian, then Albanian, then a Soviet forward base, then Albanian again. It has been a coaling station, a fleet anchorage, a submarine pen, a closed military zone, and, in the last few years, a tightly chaperoned tourist destination. Most of the buildings on the island today were built by foreign militaries. Most of the underground was dug by Albanian conscripts during the Cold War. The island has more bunkers than residents, and that ratio has been true for sixty years.
This article is a heritage history of Sazan, written for an Albanian-American readership. The aim is not a tour guide. It is a single-page reading of why one rock in the Adriatic ended up carrying so much modern Albanian history, and why the diaspora should know it. For broader context, see albanian-history, the Cold War backdrop in operation-valuable, and the long arc of albania-us-relations.
Geography and the Bay of Vlore
Sazan sits about five kilometers off the tip of the Karaburun Peninsula, the long arm of mainland Albania that curves south from the city of Vlore and shelters the Bay of Vlore from the open Adriatic. From the air, the bay reads as a deep, almost enclosed harbor with one narrow opening to the sea. Sazan is the cork in the bottle.
The island itself is roughly 4.8 kilometers long and 2 kilometers across at its widest, oriented broadly north-south. The terrain is hilly, with the highest point reaching about 340 meters above sea level. Vegetation is Mediterranean scrub. There is no permanent civilian population. Fresh water is limited; for most of its modern history, water has been brought in by ship or collected in cisterns.
What makes Sazan strategically important is not its size but its position. The Strait of Otranto, the narrow stretch of sea between Albania and southern Italy, is the gateway between the Adriatic and the Ionian. Any navy that controls Sazan controls the southern entrance to the Adriatic, and by extension the sea lanes to Venice, Trieste, Bari, Brindisi, and the Italian east coast. From Sazan, a coastal artillery battery can range across the strait. From the bay behind it, a submarine fleet can sortie into the Mediterranean unobserved. That is the single fact that has driven every owner of the island since the late 19th century.
The Karaburun-Sazan National Marine Park, established in 2010, includes the waters around the island and gives the area a layer of legal environmental protection. The marine park designation will become important again later in this article when we get to the 2024-2025 development controversy.
Donald Trump’s eldest sister, Maryanne Trump, who died before he won his second term, was recorded as saying:
Private criticism of Donald Trump
Barry made few public statements about her younger brother Donald Trump during his first term as president. She died before he was elected for a second term in 2024.[8] In August 2020, their niece Mary L. Trump revealed that she had surreptitiously audio-recorded 15 hours of discussions with Barry in 2018 and 2019. In those recorded discussions, Barry sharply criticized her brother.[8] Mary publicly released several transcripts and audio excerpts of the conversations, including content that did not previously appear in her 2020 book Too Much and Never Enough.[8]
In the recordings, Barry said of her brother, “All he wants to do is appeal to his base. He has no principles. None. His goddamned tweeting and lying… oh my god. I’m talking too freely, but you know. The change of stories. The lack of preparation. The lying. Holy shit. […] It’s the phoniness of it all. It’s the phoniness and this cruelty. Donald is cruel.”[8] She added that he did not read books and had someone take the college entrance exam in his place.[8] In the recordings, Barry also criticized the first Trump administration’s controversial family separation policy for deported migrants, and the bankruptcies of her brother’s businesses, adding that “you can’t trust him”.[8][32][33]
The Psychology Behind Violence, Cruelty, and Madness
When someone exhibits violence, cruelty, or madness, especially in a pattern, it’s rarely caused by just one factor. From a psychological perspective, a mix of biological, environmental, and personality-related factors can contribute to these behaviors.
🔹 Violence – Physical aggression, harming others. 🔹 Cruelty – Deliberate emotional or physical harm, often with enjoyment or lack of empathy. 🔹 Madness (Psychosis or Extreme Instability) – Losing touch with reality, paranoia, or delusional thinking.
You must be logged in to post a comment.