Follow us on social

2018-01-03t230218z_714644112_rc1e748ebd20_rtrmadp_3_usa-trump-russia-bannon-scaled

Will the RNC return funds from alleged foreign agent?

Thomas Barrack’s links to the GOP go well beyond Donald Trump.

Reporting | Washington Politics

The recent indictment of Trump confidante Thomas J. Barrack Sr. for acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign country raised eyebrows as the Justice Department has rarely prosecuted such cases. Perhaps even more surprising, Barrack and his two accomplices were indicted for acting as unregistered foreign agents for the United Arab Emirates, a country with extremely close ties to policymakers, a lengthy track record of funding Washington-based think tanks, and an aggressive regional foreign policy ranging from the Horn of Africa, Libya, and Yemen to isolating its Persian Gulf neighbors, Qatar and Iran.

While the indictment focused on Barrack and his co-conspirators’ role in influencing Donald Trump's 2016 campaign messaging and early presidency, the extent of Barrack’s influence in American politics goes well beyond Donald Trump. He has spent over $1.6 million on Republican campaigns since 2015.

CNN reported that political considerations influenced the Justice Department’s decision to hold off on the indictment until after the presidential election, noting that prosecutors “are discouraged from advancing politically sensitive matters ahead of an election.”

Barrack generously supported the election campaigns of Trump and GOP House and Senate members who were up for election over the past several political cycles, contributing $1,665,600 to Republican campaigns over the 2016, 2018, and 2020 campaign cycles, according to Federal Election Committee records reviewed by Responsible Statecraft.

The top recipient was the Trump Victory Committee ($875,600), funds that were used for Trump’s presidential campaigns and that, presumably, helped ensure the access to Trump that made Barrack such a valuable asset for the Emiratis, according to the indictment.

But Barrack’s second biggest campaign contributions went to the Republican National Committee and totaled $389,500 in the 2020 election cycle alone, funds that the GOP used to support campaigns for various candidates.

When asked if the RNC has any plans at this time, or in the event that Barrack is convicted of acting as a foreign agent, to return the $389,500, the party did not respond.

Holding on to six-figure contributions from someone who is currently under indictment for acting as a foreign agent of the UAE seems like something that a major political party might want to distance itself from, but Washington think tanks, politicians, and consultants are surprisingly comfortable with money linked to the UAE and other Gulf states.

For instance, former Senator Norm Coleman is a central Republican Party fundraiser who oversees the disbursement of tens of millions of dollars in contributions supporting Republican campaigns in each political cycle, via the American Action Network and its sister super PAC, the Congressional Leadership Fund.

Coleman is also a registered agent for Saudi Arabia, a job for which he has been remunerated  since 2014 and which he publicly defended in the wake of Washington Post columnist Jamal Khashoggi’s murder, reportedly on orders from the country’s de facto leader, Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman, in October 2017. 

On the Democratic side, WestExec Advisors, a consultancy founded by Secretary of State Antony Blinken and former Under Secretary of Defense for Policy in the Obama administration, Michèle Flournoy, sold a minority stake of its business to Teneo, an advisory firm with multimillion-dollar contracts to represent clients in Saudi Arabia and the UAE.  

And in the think tank arena, UAE funding is pervasive, accounting for over $15 million in contributions to think tanks between 2014 and 2018, according to research conducted by the Foreign Influence Transparency Initiative at the Center for International Policy, making the UAE the third largest foreign government funder of U.S. think tanks after Norway and the United Kingdom.

Washington’s institutions are awash in UAE and Saudi funding, with recipients facing little public relations or legal consequences. Barrack’s prosecution appears anomalous, but the Justice Department’s decision to pursue the case against him, albeit belatedly, is a warning that money from the UAE and other foreign sources may come with legal, as well as reputational, risks.


FILE PHOTO: Colony Capital CEO Thomas Barrack speaks at the Republican National Convention in Cleveland, Ohio, U.S. July 21, 2016. REUTERS/Mike Segar/File photo
Reporting | Washington Politics
POGO The Bunker
Top image credit: Project on Government Oversight

Bombers astray! Washington's priorities go off course

Military Industrial Complex

The Bunker appears originally at the Project on Government Oversight and is republished here with permission.


keep readingShow less
Trump Zelensky
Top photo credit: Joshua Sukoff / Shutterstock.com

Blob exploiting Trump's anger with Putin, risking return to Biden's war

Europe

Donald Trump’s recent outburst against Vladimir Putin — accusing the Russian leader of "throwing a pile of bullsh*t at us" and threatening devastating new sanctions — might be just another Trumpian tantrum.

The president is known for abrupt reversals. Or it could be a bargaining tactic ahead of potential Ukraine peace talks. But there’s a third, more troubling possibility: establishment Republican hawks and neoconservatives, who have been maneuvering to hijack Trump’s “America First” agenda since his return to office, may be exploiting his frustration with Putin to push for a prolonged confrontation with Russia.

Trump’s irritation is understandable. Ukraine has accepted his proposed ceasefire, but Putin has refused, making him, in Trump’s eyes, the main obstacle to ending the war.

Putin’s calculus is clear. As Ted Snider notes in the American Conservative, Russia is winning on the battlefield. In June, it captured more Ukrainian territory and now threatens critical Kyiv’s supply lines. Moscow also seized a key lithium deposit critical to securing Trump’s support for Ukraine. Meanwhile, Russian missile and drone strikes have intensified.

Putin seems convinced his key demands — Ukraine’s neutrality, territorial concessions in the Donbas and Crimea, and a downsized Ukrainian military — are more achievable through war than diplomacy.

Yet his strategy empowers the transatlantic “forever war” faction: leaders in Britain, France, Germany, and the EU, along with hawks in both main U.S. parties. German Chancellor Friedrich Merz claims that diplomacy with Russia is “exhausted.” Europe’s war party, convinced a Russian victory would inevitably lead to an attack on NATO (a suicidal prospect for Moscow), is willing to fight “to the last Ukrainian.” Meanwhile, U.S. hawks, including liberal interventionist Democrats, stoke Trump’s ego, framing failure to stand up to Putin’s defiance as a sign of weakness or appeasement.

Trump long resisted this pressure. Pragmatism told him Ukraine couldn’t win, and calling it “Biden’s war” was his way of distancing himself, seeking a quick exit to refocus on China, which he has depicted as Washington’s greater foreign threat. At least as important, U.S. involvement in the war in Ukraine has been unpopular with his MAGA base.

But his June strikes on Iran may signal a hawkish shift. By touting them as a decisive blow to Iran’s nuclear program (despite Tehran’s refusal so far to abandon uranium enrichment), Trump may be embracing a new approach to dealing with recalcitrant foreign powers: offer a deal, set a deadline, then unleash overwhelming force if rejected. The optics of “success” could tempt him to try something similar with Russia.

This pivot coincides with a media campaign against restraint advocates within the administration like Elbridge Colby, the Pentagon policy chief who has prioritized China over Ukraine and also provoked the opposition of pro-Israel neoconservatives by warning against war with Iran. POLITICO quoted unnamed officials attacking Colby for wanting the U.S. to “do less in the world.” Meanwhile, the conventional Republican hawk Marco Rubio’s influence grows as he combines the jobs of both secretary of state and national security adviser.

What Can Trump Actually Do to Russia?
 

Nuclear deterrence rules out direct military action — even Biden, far more invested in Ukraine than Trump, avoided that risk. Instead, Trump ally Sen.Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), another establishment Republican hawk, is pushing a 500% tariff on nations buying Russian hydrocarbons, aiming to sever Moscow from the global economy. Trump seems supportive, although the move’s feasibility and impact are doubtful.

China and India are key buyers of Russian oil. China alone imports 12.5 million barrels daily. Russia exports seven million barrels daily. China could absorb Russia’s entire output. Beijing has bluntly stated it “cannot afford” a Russian defeat, ensuring Moscow’s economic lifeline remains open.

The U.S., meanwhile, is ill-prepared for a tariff war with China. When Trump imposed 145% tariffs, Beijing retaliated by cutting off rare earth metals exports, vital to U.S. industry and defense. Trump backed down.

At the G-7 summit in Canada last month, the EU proposed lowering price caps on Russian oil from $60 a barrel to $45 a barrel as part of its 18th sanctions package against Russia. Trump rejected the proposal at the time but may be tempted to reconsider, given his suggestion that more sanctions may be needed. Even if Washington backs the measure now, however, it is unlikely to cripple Russia’s war machine.

Another strategy may involve isolating Russia by peeling away Moscow’s traditionally friendly neighbors. Here, Western mediation between Armenia and Azerbaijan isn’t about peace — if it were, pressure would target Baku, which has stalled agreements and threatened renewed war against Armenia. The real goal is to eject Russia from the South Caucasus and create a NATO-aligned energy corridor linking Turkey to Central Asia, bypassing both Russia and Iran to their detriment.

Central Asia itself is itself emerging as a new battleground. In May 2025, the EU has celebrated its first summit with Central Asian nations in Uzbekistan, with a heavy focus on developing the Middle Corridor, a route for transportation of energy and critical raw materials that would bypass Russia. In that context, the EU has committed €10 billion in support of the Trans-Caspian International Transport Route.

keep readingShow less
Syria sanctions
Top image credit: People line up to buy bread, after Syria's Bashar al-Assad was ousted, in Douma, on the outskirts of Damascus, Syria December 23, 2024. REUTERS/Zohra Bensemra

Lifting sanctions on Syria exposes their cruel intent

Middle East

On June 30, President Trump signed an executive order terminating the majority of U.S. sanctions on Syria. The move, which would have been unthinkable mere months ago, fulfilled a promise he made at an investment forum in Riyadh in May.“The sanctions were brutal and crippling,” he had declared to an audience of primarily Saudi businessmen. Lifting them, he said, will “give Syria a chance at greatness.”

The significance of this statement lies not solely in the relief that it will bring to the Syrian people. His remarks revealed an implicit but rarely admitted truth: sanctions — often presented as a peaceful alternative to war — have been harming the Syrian people all along.

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.