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
Mark Levin
Top photo credit: Erick Stakelbeck on TBN/Screengrab

The great fade out: Neocon influencers rage as they diminish

Media

Mark Levin appears to be having a meltdown.

The veteran neoconservative talk host is repulsed by reports that President Donald Trump might be inching closer to an Iranian nuclear deal, reducing the likelihood of war. In addition to his rants on how this would hurt Israel, Levin has been howling to anyone who will listen that any deal with Iran needs approval from Congress (funny he doesn’t have the same attitude for waging war, only for making peace).

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

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.