It seems that former Blackwater CEO, international war profiteer, and wannabe colonialist Erik Prince is eager to get back into the action, this time on American soil. Politico reported today that a group of military contractors led by Prince delivered a 26-page proposal to President Donald Trump’s team before the inauguration, detailing how the new administration could enlist the private sector to hit its deportation goals.
The plan states that a “600% increase in activity” is needed for the President to deport 12 million people before the 2026 midterms — an increase that Prince and his allies don’t believe government agencies are equipped to make.
Among the ideas laid out in the $25 billion proposal: a private fleet of 100 deportation planes, privately-run processing camps on military bases, expedited mass deportation hearings, and a “bounty program which provides a cash reward for each illegal alien held by a state or local law enforcement officer.”
Former Trump Advisor Steve Bannon (who still has strong ties to key advisors on the President’s team) expressed support for the plan to Politico. “People want this stood up quickly, and understand the government is always very slow to do things,” he said.
The proposal has clear moral, financial, and legal concerns — but that goes without saying when Erik Prince is concerned.
Prince’s Blackwater Security Consulting group carried out a highly publicized massacre of 17 civilians at Nissour Square in Baghdad in 2007, causing the group to lose its security contract with the U.S. government. Four Blackwater employees were convicted by a U.S. federal court for their involvement in the massacre and then pardoned by President Trump in his first term.
Neither the tragedy of the Nissour Square Massacre nor the embarrassment it represented for the military contracting industry dissuaded Prince, who has continued to push for more privatization and less oversight in military operations.
Fortunately, it seems that his latest pet project isn’t gaining much traction.
Bill Matthews, a co-author of the proposal, told Politico, “We have not been contacted by, nor have we had any discussions with, the government since the White Paper that we submitted months ago. There has been zero show of interest or engagement from the government and we have no reason to believe there will be.”
Gideon Pardo is a Reporting Intern at Responsible Statecraft and a senior at the Medill School of Journalism at Northwestern University. He has previously reported for the Medill Investigative Lab and for the on-campus publication North by Northwestern, where he wrote about campus related news and national politics.
Top photo credit: Erik Prince speaks with political commentator Gordon Chang at CPAC (Photo: Zach D Roberts/NurPhoto)
Top photo credit: Foreign Secretary David Lammy (Ben Dance / FCDO/Flickr); UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer (Lauren Hurley / No 10 Downing Street/Flickr) and Britain's Ambassador to the US Lord Peter Mandelson (Wikimedia/FCDO)
Against a background of negativity toward President Trump in the British establishment, Britain’s new Ambassador to Washington Lord Peter Mandelson has a battle on his hands to keep Downing Street relevant in D.C.
He has already been quick to backtrack on his previous disparaging comments about Trump.
If diplomacy is a game of influence, there is no better way to lose influence than to cause offense. He should aim to make courtesy great again.
In 2019, Lord Mandelson described then President Trump as a "danger to the world" and little more than a “white nationalist and racist.” Arriving in Washington to take up his role as His Britannic Majesty’s Ambassador, he has embarked on a charm offensive with U.S. news networks. Describing his prior comments as “childish and wrong,” Lord Mandelson has described President Trump as “nice” and “fair-minded,” and said that people must respect the President’s “strong and clear mandate for change.”
Beyond his personal rebrand, Lord Mandelson faces an uphill struggle to rebuild relationships in Washington, for a British government that had assumed, hoped even, that President Trump would not win.
Prime Minister Keir Starmer himself has fallen afoul with ill-advised comments about President Trump, at one point describing himself as “anti-Trump.” In offering to commit UK peacekeepers to Ukraine on the back of a U.S.-brokered peace deal, Starmer is now scrabbling to reposition himself, and Britain, as a vital bridge between the U.S. and Europe. That will require some deft diplomatic footwork.
Ambassador Mandelson has made a start, suggesting that Britain should position itself as “not Europe.” However, every aspect of British policy towards Ukraine since 2014 has been firmly aligned with the hardline European faction that includes Poland and the Baltic States; that is poles apart from a rapidly shifting U.S. policy under President Trump. Ambassador Mandelson might be better off describing UK policy as “not Biden,” showing a willingness to pivot away from the zero-sum Democratic Party approach to Russia of the last decade. Except, that would require a genuine change in Britain’s positioning on Ukraine, which has yet to manifest itself.
Prime Minister Starmer remains off message with the new U.S. Administration by reassuring President Zelensky that Ukraine is still on an irreversible path to NATO membership. He is hemmed in politically by former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who has been buttering up President Trump with compliments, yet calling for the UK not to change its Ukraine policy.
While Johnson is able to navigate political differences with skill, given his natural affinity to the president’s politics, the Labour government has a deep seated Trump problem that will be harder to shift. This follows a long-running slew of negative comments by other senior figures. Foreign Secretary David Lammy has verbally excoriated the president many times, once declaring that “Donald Trump is not welcome in Britain.”
Recent years have witnessed a trend by western politicians and media figures in general to disrespect those foreign leaders they disdain, including President Trump.
Boris Johnson himself wrote a crude limerick in 2016 suggesting that President Erdogan of Turkey was a “wanker,” and famously compared President Putin to Dobby the house elf from Harry Potter. People domestically chuckled at his Etonian humor. Yet his ability to influence two seasoned heads of state was dented.
Kim Darroch, the former British ambassador to the United States, remains utterly unrepentant about his leaked comments that President Trump’s first government was “dysfunctional” and “inept.”
The system risks believing its own propaganda and rewarding people who become hoist with their own petard. Lord Darroch, as he is now known, received a Life Peerage and a hefty book deal for making a catastrophic diplomatic blunder that would have gotten anyone else sacked. I know from a senior diplomatic contact that he had been warned about his “fruity” telegrams about the U.S. President, but has chosen to grandstand nonetheless.
Diplomatic telegrams are not meant to be leaked, of course. But speaking respectfully about President Trump — or any foreign leader — shouldn’t be seized upon as moral weakness, but rather seen as the way that diplomatic business is carried out. Disagreements are best discussed with due diplomatic courtesy in private. Diplomacy isn’t about friendship — although it’s nice if you can get it — but rather about finding ways to coexist.
There is a reason that the UK invests significantly more in its diplomatic relationship with the United States than it does with any other country. The U.S. is the most powerful country on earth, and more powerful than the entirety of Europe in economic and military terms. Our ambassadors in Berlin and Paris are as senior as our man in Washington, but the latter is seen internally as primus inter pares.
Some people raised eyebrows about appointing a political figure like Lord Mandelson as Britain’s ambassador to Washington. While political appointees are not the norm in the UK diplomatic service — unlike in the American — there are precedents, including David Cameron’s appointment of his chief of staff, Ed Llewellyn, to be ambassador to Paris in 2016. Former Labour MP Boateng was made British high commissioner to South Africa in 2005.
The diplomat slated for the role, Sir Tim Barrow, is an exceptional diplomat, who had previously served as national security adviser, ambassador to Moscow when I arrived in 2014, and, before that, Kyiv. But while he is scrupulously independent, he made his ambassadorial career under the previous Conservative government.
Having spoken to two former senior British ambassadors last week, the considered view was that Lord Mandelson — who is not considered an ally of Prime Minister Keir Starmer — has the political clout to speak truth to power, with Starmer, behind closed doors on the big calls. That will be vital.
Navigating a huge shift on Ukraine policy under President Trump will occupy most of Mandelson’s time at the start of his term on Massachusetts Avenue. In order for Britain’s voice to be heard, he needs to help Starmer redraw the sword lines of diplomatic etiquette and make courtesy great again.
keep readingShow less
Top Photo: President Donald Trump speaks with Mohammed bin Salman, Deputy Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, during their meeting Tuesday, March 14, 2017, in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C. (Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead)
A month into the fragile ceasefire, Gazans are experiencing a brief respite from violence and the continuing release of Israeli hostages and imprisoned Palestinians. But debate over the future of Gaza reflects the agendas of states with a stake in the ongoing crisis — rather than the grim day-to-day reality Gazans face on the ground.
Once the ceasefire got underway, Gaza faded from the headlines — until Trump reignited the debate when he declared that the U.S. would occupy Gaza, relocate its residents, and transform it into a “Riviera of the Middle East.”
“We’re going to take it,” he proclaimed just last week. “We’re going to hold it.”
This is an outcome not even the Israeli government believed it could achieve. Although early in the war, it had broached the idea that Egypt and Jordan could accept some Gazan refugees, the government headed by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had settled on a policy of internal displacement for the Palestinians, moving large sectors of the population within the enclave to facilitate the IDF’s mapping and destruction of tunnels and to carry out attacks on remaining Hamas fighters.
Trump cut to the chase. If Hamas is going to be eliminated from Gaza, everyone has to go. No more whack-a-mole. Trump’s remarks handed Netanyahu a convenient “day-after” plan, something missing from his bomb-first, plan-later approach to Gaza. Trump’s framing of his pitch – that wholesale transfer was the only feasible way to relieve Palestinian suffering – was deceptively cunning.
To those repulsed by the prospect of adding to the Palestinian diaspora, the real damage of Trump’s gambits is not that it will become reality but rather that it has diverted attention from efforts to develop a genuine post-war strategy. Or has it?
Perhaps, as Prof. Gregory Gause recently argued, Trump’s threat serves a different purpose. By proposing to expel Palestinians from Gaza, Trump is making an intentionally provocative move to pressure Gulf Arab states — especially Saudi Arabia — into funding Gaza’s reconstruction and normalizing ties with Israel. According to Gause, such a gambit mirrors Netanyahu’s 2020 threat to annex parts of the West Bank. This ultimately led to the UAE normalizing relations with Israel partly in exchange for pausing the annexation plan.
Whether this is truly Trump’s strategy matters less than the fact that rebuilding Gaza — and starting soon — is essential for any meaningful negotiations or a sustainable end to the conflict, let alone a comprehensive peace agreement. More fundamentally, it is essential to averting a humanitarian catastrophe and the multigenerational degradation of Palestinian society.
While many Gazans are critical of Hamas as corrupt or ineffective, they have largely supported armed struggle against Israel and embraced the genuine belief that Palestine will eventually emerge victorious. The wholesale destruction of Gaza risks strengthening this maximalist mentality among Gazans, who may now feel they have little left to lose.
Allowing Gaza to fester in its present squalor and destruction would be a grave mistake, although, for Israel, this is probably not an issue. It can keep Gazans from penetrating its territory directly from the enclave and maintain tight control over ports of entry. Hamas might reconstitute to some extent, but God help the leader who sticks his head above the parapet.
Furthermore, many Israelis likely also share the Gazan view that there is little left to lose, and armed confrontation is the sole pathway to eventual victory.
But if you rule an Arab state in Gaza’s proximity, you must expect that some Gazans, radicalized by the recent war and eager for revenge, will escape the cauldron to safety in your cities. Egypt faced this challenge for nearly 20 years, losing a president to assassination in the process. Jordan suffered from it in 1970-1971, and Lebanon, in turn, from the mid-1970s onward. It was the Saudis’ turn in the early 2000s, following America’s on 9/11. Rebuilding Gaza, therefore, is an essential investment in the political and social stability of neighboring states.
The Saudis are particularly vulnerable because the Crown Prince’s 2030 plan – an ambitious thrust by the Kingdom toward global integration and regional leadership – hinges on a stable security environment. And his political survival presumably hinges on maintaining civil order in his own country.
However, the Saudi stake is also potentially positive. Intervening constructively to stave off a cataclysm in Gaza would underscore Mohammed bin Salman’s claim to a leadership role at home and abroad. The Arab Summit slated for March 4, which has already prompted Egypt to put forward its own reconstruction proposal, would provide the ideal venue to make good on this claim.
While the Saudis would have to walk back or discreetly veil their demand that normalization with Israel and participation in the reconstruction of Gaza would require Israel’s commitment to a political horizon for Palestinians, the Israelis would have to finalize a ceasefire agreement. No one, including Saudi Arabia, is going to embark on reconstruction while Israeli combat operations are ongoing. A bold Saudi offer to begin work would, therefore, challenge Israel to declare an end to the fighting.
In responding to a question about the UAE’s reaction to Trump’s Gaza plan, the Emirates’ ambassador to the U.S., Yousef Otaiba, noted that it was “difficult,” adding that he did not know where things would land. A widely-shared clip that was edited made it appear that Otaiba endorsed Trump’s Gaza plan as the only option, but in the original footage, it is clear that he was referring to Trump’s broader Middle East plan which remains unclear.
Since his remarks, UAE President Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan, according to the country’s national news agency, told Secretary of State Marco Rubio that Abu Dhabi “reject[s] any attempts to displace the Palestinian people from their land.”
Nevertheless, where were other more appetizing proposals?
There are none because the Israelis have, from the outset, rejected a role in reconstructing Gaza; the Saudis have hidden behind the demand that, at a minimum, Israel take tangible steps toward Palestinian statehood, an outcome that the Israeli government emphatically rejects. Moreover, the Palestinian Authority lacks the capacity and resources to act. Under Biden, the White House pressed for a day-after plan, but the Israelis, flexing their muscle within the American body politic, found they could disregard the request with impunity.
Thus, at this juncture, the Saudis are the only potentially effective player capable and, in theory, incentivized to act.
We have no way of knowing whether the Trump administration has systematically engaged the Crown Prince on its hypothetical threat — or should we say bluff? — to dump millions of impoverished Palestinians into fragile neighboring states if the Kingdom fails to step up to the plate and start to rebuild Gaza. And, moreover, sign a treaty with Israel. What is known is that the hour is late, and the task is great.
Ukraine war negotiations are making remarkable strides as the conflict nears its third anniversary.
Indeed, American and Russian officials met at high-level talks in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia, on Tuesday. Those present said the talks were productive.
"We did not just listen but heard each other, and I have reason to believe the American side has better understood our position," Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said after his talks with Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
“I really believe that we’re on the cusp of peace in Europe for the first time in three years,” U.S. Vice President J.D. Vance said on Thursday, regarding ongoing developments.
With the U.S. and Russia apparently proceeding full speed ahead diplomatically, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky fears being left out.
“You cannot make decisions without Ukraine on how to end the war in Ukraine, on any conditions,” Zelensky explained. “We want it to be fair and that no one decides anything behind our backs.”
Trump blasted Zelensky’s concerns. “[Ukrainians are] upset about not having a seat, well, they’ve had a seat for three years, and a long time before that,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday. “This could have been settled very easily.”
Trump went further Wednesday, calling the Ukrainian president “a Dictator” on Truth Social: “[Zelensky] refuses to have Elections, is very low in Ukrainian Polls, and the only thing he was good at was playing Biden ‘like a fiddle.’ A Dictator without Elections, Zelenskyy better move fast or he is not going to have a Country left.”
“Biden never tried, Europe has failed to bring Peace, and Zelenskyy probably wants to keep the “gravy train” going. I love Ukraine, but Zelenskyy has done a terrible job, his Country is shattered, and MILLIONS have unnecessarily died – And so it continues…..,” Trump wrote. (The WSJ reported about one million people were killed or wounded in the war back in September.)
Amid Trump’s jabs at Zelensky, his envoy, Lt. Gen. Keith Kellogg (ret.) met with the Ukrainian president on Thursday in Kyiv. While a press conference had been scheduled to take place after the meeting, it was unexpectedly canceled because the U.S. side had not agreed to the format, according to a Ukrainian official.
Europe’s concerns about being shut out of the Ukraine war negotiations in Riyadh, meanwhile, have grown to a fever pitch, leading French President Emmanuel Macron to hold emergency meetings with myriad European nations, the UK, and Canada, to coordinate their responses to Washington’s engagement with Moscow.
After meetings held at the Elysee Palace in Paris Tuesday and Wednesday, Macron announced that the group he convened had established a “clear and united” position. According to the group, achieving any “long-lasting and solid peace” should meet three conditions: Ukraine’s direct involvement in peace talks;“robust and credible guarantees” to support a peace accord; and European security concerns must be taken fully into account..
Whether these conditions will be satisfied in upcoming diplomatic talks remains to be seen.
In other Ukraine war news this week:
Responding to the U.S. diplomatic pivot on Ukraine, European countries are bolstering their defense spending to counter the perceived Russia threat. According to Fortune, Denmark has announced a $7 billion rearmament plan, with Danish Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen, who has already clashed with Trump over Greenland, describing the political moment as “the most dangerous situation in our lifetime.”
Russian forces have retaken over 300 square miles in its Kursk region from Ukrainian forces, according to Reuters. That amounts to almost two-thirds of the territory Ukraine captured since its incursion there began last summer. The head of Russia’s General Staff, Col. Gen. Sergei Rudskoi, also claimed that Ukraine’s Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia, and Kherson regions are legally part of Russia and will not be returned to Kyiv as part of any peace agreement.
Reuters also reported that Russia would regard a plan floated by British Prime Minister Keir Starmer to deploy as many as 30,000 European troops, including a contingent from the UK, as peacekeepers to Ukraine as unacceptable. Lavrov has also said that any NATO-constituted force would be considered a “direct threat” to Russian security. At the Munich Security Conference, U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth likewise remarked that no U.S. troops would enter Ukraine, nor would they serve as a guarantee for EU troops there.
There were no State Department press briefings this week.
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.