The militarization of Trump's Triumphal Arch draws fire from critics who say it is 'cartoonishly illegal' and 'idiotic' while charging that Trump is tying it to national security so courts will approve it

(Instagram)

Whenever the Trump administration tackles a project, you can expect incompetence and dishonesty to quickly take hold. That familiar process is unfolding at this moment as Trump attempts to pull off a con job in order to make his controversial "Triumphal Arch" palatable to oversight groups and the public. What kind of con job is Trump trying to pull? It involves the use of deceptive language. As of last Friday, Trump was advertising the arch as one thing. Then, on Sunday, he started referring to it as something else. That's nutty enough, but get this: Trump actually wants to use the arch as the site for a sniper's nest. (We can't just let the sniper's-nest idea drop, so we will return to that near the end of this post.)

That brought a heavy dose of Trump-flavored chaos to the federal review process that is required for building such a structure. One critic in Congress has called Trump's plan "cartoonishly illegal." But so far, that hasn't seemed to deter a president who has an ear only for his own thoughts and not for those of people who actually know what they are talking about.

We are more than a year and a half into Trump's never-ending second term, and we have become familiar with his pattern of disregarding norms, rules, procedures, statutes, court orders, even constitutional amendments -- structure of any kind. It is not certain yet that the arch review process will turn into a slog. But a jointly published report at The Washington Post and Yahoo! News indicates that could be the outcome. Under the headline "Trump's plan to militarize proposed arch raises new legal, safety concerns," The Post's reporting team of Dan Diamond, Liam Scott and Dan Lamothe writes:

President Donald Trump's push to convert his planned triumphal arch near Arlington National Cemetery into a military complex has complicated a required federal review process and raised new legal and safety concerns.

Trump unveiled his new national security rationale Sunday in a post on Truth Social, saying that the 250-foot-tall arch project - which he has framed for nearly a year as a tourist attraction - will now house drones, snipers and ammunition. The president said he was making the change at the request of the U.S. military.

One oddity is that Trump announced the change on what is considered his personal social-media platform and financial asset. That implies, at least to me, that he is directing this project on his own -- without input from anyone who might know how such projects actually come to life in the nation's capital. It also raises this question: Is Natalie Harp, Trump's "human printer" and well-publicized online mouthpiece, forming content about the arch, in total or in part? The Post team writes:

Critics of the plan saw echoes of Trump's shifting security case for the White House ballroom, which the administration has used to defend that project in court. But while presidents have historically had some leeway to revamp the White House grounds, the arch would stand on federal parkland more than a mile away, where Congress has set stricter rules for construction.

"There is nothing that authorizes or justifies a massive arch, even if Trump tries to disguise it as a military facility," said Rep. Jared Huffman of California, the top Democrat on a House committee that oversees federal parkland. "This is cartoonishly illegal, but he's obviously trying to find a way to do it anyway." (By the way, I like the way Huffman talks. "Cartoonishly illegal" is a superbly crafted phrase, one that should resonate with the public -- and perhaps it indicates Dems should keep Huffman in mind as a candidate for higher office someday.)

Experts in a variety of fields already are voicing concerns about various aspects of the arch project? Will Trump pay them any mind? Will the Colorado Rockies win this year's World Series? Here is more from The Post: 

Aviation experts warned Monday that using drones at the planned arch site - Memorial Circle, a roundabout near Reagan National Airport - could pose risks in the airport's crowded airspace.

"Anything you add to the airspace complicates the airspace and increases the operational risk," said Tom Lintner, a former safety official at the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).

Other military and safety experts have questioned the implications of storing ammunition in the middle of a heavily used traffic circle and whether tourists could still enter the arch as previously planned.

Some of the problems with Trump's plans are so obvious that it shouldn't take an expert to point them out. Consider the following;

(1) Using drones near Reagan National Airport -- We wrote about a similar issue just last month when Trump's determination to turn the White House into a construction zone -- with work on his ballroom/military bunker, a new helipad, and other projects -- contributed to communication problems that led to a commercial airliner and the presidential helicopter coming uncomfortably close to each other at Reagan National. We noted that Reagan National has the single busiest commercial runway at a U.S. airport. We also noted that the airliner-helicopter near-miss revived memories of a January 2025 incident at Reagan National that killed 67 people, the deadliest U.S. air crash in more than two decades. 

(2) Storing ammunition near a congested traffic circle -- Gee, what could go wrong? Consider the following from Yahoo! News: 

Critics mocked the idea and slammed it as "stupid, dangerous and unworkable" and "bizarre." Some suggested the change was made to ensure the arch gets past court challenges on national-security grounds.

Rep. Don Beyer, D-Va., warned that the arch would sit directly in the flight path of Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport.

"Putting a drone launching site directly in the landing path for DCA is a stupid, dangerous, and unworkable idea," the congressman posted on X. "Trump clearly expects to lose a lawsuit and therefore wants to set up a pretext to argue that the arch is tied to national security. Which is obviously idiotic."

Trump critic George Conway wrote several social media posts slamming the idea.

"Everyone who has gone to military school knows that absolutely the best place to put an ammo dump is at a major traffic junction near the heart of your capital city," Conway posted. "Reichsfeldmarschall Donald von Bone Spurs strikes again!!!"

Journalist Chuck Todd said the change makes the arch a bigger target.

"If this is actually something being considered, it seems weird to broadcast to the world where they can find a stash of weapons to target in D.C.," Todd said. "This is obviously some bizarre effort to wrap this arch idea into national defense."

We were heartened to learn that historic preservationists are involved in the project, but according to The Post, they are not pleased with how things are going:

Historic preservationists participating in a required federal review process said they could not move forward until the administration clarifies Trump's plans for the arch. Administration officials last week had asked Washington and Virginia's preservation offices to agree to a memorandum of agreement (MOA) by Monday as part of that process, and they invited other preservationists to participate.

"This MOA is DOA," Charles Birnbaum of the Cultural Landscape Foundation wrote in an email to the administration on Monday. An official for Washington's historic preservation office also wrote in an email that the office needed clarity on Trump's post. Both emails were shared with The Washington Post.

Perhaps the preservationists need clarity because  Trump has floated the murky (and "bonkers") idea of including snipers' nests in the arch. Trump has claimed the U.S. military requested the facility for snipers, but according to a report at Reuters, he has not identified any person or office that made such a request, and a military official had no comment.  Here is more from the Reuters article:

Mark Cancian, a retired Marine colonel, said that while there was a ​stronger case for enhancing security at the White House, including expanding underground bunker facilities, the rationale for militarizing the arch was harder to discern.

Cancian said the move appeared aimed at countering opposition to the ‌monument, which is ⁠planned for a traffic circle just 1 mile (1.6 km) from Joint Base Myer-Henderson Hall, an active Army installation, and 2 miles from the Pentagon.

"It looks like it's tacked on in order to strengthen the rationale for construction," Cancian, a senior adviser with the Defense and Security Department at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, a Washington-based think tank, told Reuters. "There is this military facility long established with a variety of military capabilities one mile away. So why you need this one isn't clear."

Cancian also said that storing ammunition at the arch would create logistical challenges ​and questioned the value of positioning snipers there.

Retired Air Force Col. Cedric Leighton voiced similar concern in a video interview at CNN. When asked if Trump's plans for the arc make strategic sense, Leighton said:

It doesn't. It's one of the oddest things I've heard when it comes to a monument of this type. 

When you look at defensive positions, drones usually are placed where can they do some good. Here, they will be in the flight path of Reagan National Airport. As you look at domestic positioning, you wonder: Where will snipers do their work and for what purpose will they do their work? There is no military reason for these things to be on any building of this type.

The only time that i can find when an arch was used for military purposes was in 1871 when the French used the Arc de Triomphe as an artillery position when there was civil strife in Paris.

There is no reason that justifies the construction at the White House East Wing and ballroom. There is a military complex under that structure, so there is no reason to justify construction -- if you want to call it that -- going on there.

For this proposed construction, I would like to see the military justification for that. In looking over these kinds of things in the past, I've never seen a justification that would fit for this.

U.S. Rep Melanie Stansbury (D-NM) added the following:

There is such a high level of absurdity around this. D.C. already has an anti-aircraft system in place for military purposes. There is no need for this.

But the biggest piece for me, with a number of veterans in my life, is that this is so insulting to those who actually served. Trump's public statements indicate he wants to build this arch for himself. I find it disgraceful.

Republicans are so busy puckering up to Trump's butt that they can barely produce a comprehensible thought about freedom of the press, which Trump is trying to unconstitutionally restrict

J.D. Vance views Trump's media ban as "totally appropriate" (Getty)

If you thought a significant number of Republicans in Congress would stand up to Donald Trump over his clearly unconstitutional media ban, we invite you to think again. 

As Edith Olmsted, of The New Republic (TNR), was set to publish her post at 12:40 p.m. ET yesterday, only one Republican had shown enough backbone to publicly state that Trump's actions in banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico were wrong. As the day wore on, a few more names trickled in, but it hardly could be called a stampede of Republicans who were willing to stand up for the right to a free press -- a right many historians and legal scholars consider so foundational to democracy that it is enshrined in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. But only a smattering of Republicans considered it important enough to voice their objection. That we still have MAGA types who seem to revel in their looniness -- and undoubtedly many conservatives who appear to be normal -- still supporting Trump now that we know he is a convicted felon, an adjudicated rapist, and a confessed sexual abuser (via his admission on Access Hollywood that he had made it a practice to grab women by the genitals) . . . well, that is a sign we have deep pockets of warped thinking throughout our society -- and  unfortunately, those people vote. And we haven't even touched on credible accusations, via sworn statements to the FBI and court documents, that Trump engaged in rape (even murder) while attending a golf-course party that involved allies of the late sex trafficker and pedophile Jeffrey Epstein. 

Certain residents of the U.S. still support Trump. knowing all of this? Republicans still would protect an accused pedophile because they lack the guts to take a stand for law-abiding conduct? "Pitiful" is the only word I can think of to semi-adequately describe that situation. 

What about the first Republican who did have the fortitude to stand up to Trump? That takes us back to The New Republic and Edith Olmsted, who writes under the headline "How many Republicans are brave enough to denounce Trump's media ban; Spoiler alert. It's not a lot." Olmsted writes:

So far, only one Republican lawmaker has publicly condemned President Donald Trump’s decision to ban three major news outlets from the White House.

Idaho Representative Mike Simpson told Punchbowl News Monday that restricting CNN, MS NOW, and Politico’s access to the White House was “wrong.”

“Just because you don’t like what the press is reporting or the fact that they wouldn’t call it the Gulf of America or something else like that, that’s not the reason to ban the press. You should never ban the press. The press is what keeps us honest,” Simpson said. “So I don’t like what they’re doing.” 

Some Republicans, who opened their mouths regarding Trump's past abuses, kept them shut this time, Olmsted reports:

Republican lawmakers who have opposed Trump’s policies in the past, such as Senators John Cornyn, Thom Tillis, Bill Cassidy, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, all remained silent. Republican lawmakers who like to pretend to be free-speech advocates, such as Senators Ted Cruz and Rand Paul, also failed to respond to the president’s sudden crackdown on the press.

Representative Thomas Massie only receives partial credit for posting a quip about the ban that was mostly about his opposition to Trump’s fictional $5,000 checks.

What can a reasonable mind take from this? Here's what I take from it: The postmodern Republican Party does not support the First Amendment, but it's fine protecting pedophiles. Perhaps the new GOP motto should be "Pedophiles and murderers, come join us. You are safe in our big tent."

Would you like to read about a Republican "profile in courage" regarding Trump's media ban? I would, too, but I can't find one. 

WPEC, CBS12.com in West Palm Beach, Florida, checked in with three Republicans, and all were too busy puckering up to Trump's doughy behind to consider substantive issues related to a free press. Based on original reporting from The National News Desk (TNND) in Washington, D.C., the report is filed under the headline "Vance, Scalise, others defend Trump over White House media ban: 'Totally Appropriate'. Natalia Middlestadt writes:

Vice President JD Vance, House Majority Leader Rep. Steve Scalise, and other Republicans are defending President Trump's ban of some media outlets from the White House, with Vance calling it "totally appropriate."

Trump on Friday said he was banning CNN, MS NOW, and Politico from the White House over what he called their "constant 'reporting' FAKE NEWS!" According to a Wall Street Journal report, the ban came after White House aide Natalie Harp showed Trump a clip of MS NOW bashing the administration.

Speaking to reporters at Joint Base Andrews in Maryland, Vance said:

“If you’re going to engage in what is effectively far-left propaganda, why would a Republican White House give you special access?” he added.

When asked how Trump’s ban is not a violation of free speech, Vance said the outlets “could still report on the Trump White House.”

“They can still get the public reports. They can still, of course, talk to people inside the administration and outside of the administration,” he continued.

Vance compared Politico’s coverage with Breitbart's during the Obama and Biden administrations, claiming the former is as “anti-Trump as Breitbart was anti-Obama or anti-Biden.”

“Why on God’s green earth would Donald Trump be expected to give Politico special access when nobody in the media expected the Biden administration or the Obama administration to give Breitbart special access?” he asked. 

Vance might want to take a look at the following from an account at The Hill:

Breitbart has previously complained that it was not given regular turns in the White House press pool, which is determined by the White House Correspondents’ Association. But the outlet was not barred from the White House during the Obama or Biden administrations. 

Did other Republicans follow in Vance's squishy footsteps? Yep, pretty much.  Here is more from the TNND report:

Scalise told ABC News’ “This Week” on Sunday that he didn't know the "background" behind why Trump implemented the ban, but defended the president.

“I don't think we've had a president that's been more open to the press,” Scalise said. “Look, I've been at– you go to a bill signing with President Trump, and the first thing he does before he even signs the bill is he brings in the press, and everybody gets to not only take pictures but ask questions.”

Scalise does not grasp the issues at hand. Trump loves cameras, so he naturally likes to have the press around as long as reporters file their stories with a positive view of the administration. The real issue under Supreme Court precedent is "viewpoint discrimination, which happens when an official punishes a news organization for not presenting the news in the way that he likes it.

A number of political figures said Trump's ban is something you might expect to see from a fascist or communistic government From a report at Common Dreams:

Sen. Mark Warner (D-Va.) responded to the news simply by posting the full text of the First Amendment on X.

“Fascist and communist governments limit press access to only favorable outlets, persecute journalists, and suppress truthful reporting,” said Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) in a post to social media. “Trump’s administration is doing all of that.”

Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-Ariz.) agreed the move was “straight out of the authoritarian playbook.”

Another Republican showed that his understanding of the issues matches that of Scalise -- and that is essentially no understanding at all. From the TNND report:

Mike Waltz, the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations, told CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday, “The president is absolutely within his rights to limit journalists to government facilities, particularly when, in his opinion, they’re not behaving as good-faith journalists. And that’s just not his opinion. That’s the Supreme Court’s opinion.”

Waltz cited the Supreme Court's 1965 ruling, Zemel v. Rusk, in which Chief Justice Earl Warren wrote that “the right to speak and publish does not carry with it the unrestrained right to gather information.” That opinion, however, says nothing about "behaving as good-faith journalists," as Walz incorrectly asserts in the previous paragraph.

The current dispute centers on a separate First Amendment issue called viewpoint discrimination, since Trump has explained his reasons for banning certain outlets over coverage he deems “negative.”

Senate Majority Whip John Barrasso told NBC News’ “Meet the Press” on Sunday when asked whether Trump had violated the Constitution with the media ban, “No, I believe the press has an obligation to report fairly.”

It does not, however, have an obligation to please the president. And Trump's own words indicate that is what he's looking for -- to essentially be the nation's "news czar."

When asked if he agreed with Trump’s ban, Barrasso said, “We all respect and value the freedom of the press — it’s in the Constitution.”

Barrasso added that he does not believe Trump’s decision to bar those outlets from the White House would negatively affect Republicans in the November midterm elections.

“The bottom line on all of this is: This is not going to have an impact on an election 44 days from now,” he said. “People are going to go to the voting booth. They’re going to make a decision based on their life, their future, what they believe is best for them and their families.”

Legal experts say Trump's media ban likely will not survive a court challenge, and the challenge has begun as CNN, MS NOW, and Politico file a joint lawsuit demanding that their First Amendment rights be restored

(Instagram)

Donald Trump announced his media ban -- affecting CNN, MS NOW, and Politico -- while Chief of Staff Susie Wiles was out of town on Saturday.  That likely is not a coincidence, according to a jointly published article at Daily Beast and Yahoo! News.

The news outlets began to fight back over the weekend, filing a joint lawsuit, stating that the selective ban was a "blatant violation" of the First Amendment. From a report at Associated Press (AP):

The administration’s announcement of the bans Friday and the White House’s subsequent actions over the weekend represented a clear escalation of Trump’s long-running efforts — in the courts and through administrative action — to restrict news coverage he finds objectionable or, in his words, “fake news.” They were also the latest test of First Amendment protections in the United States, where the government is constitutionally forbidden from restricting the press.

The Constitution, the banned news outlets said in their lawsuit, “does not allow a president or any other government official to deprive the press of their First Amendment rights and liberty and property interests with no notice or process based solely on his dislike of the content of their reporting.”On Monday morning, the banned TV networks were reporting from an intersection just outside the White House complex. Also Monday, CNN was removed from its pool duties, which are shared by the major networks. It had been scheduled to cover the president’s trip to New York. In an email, the TV pool, which consists of the five major networks, wrote that there would be no replacement coverage following the White House actions.

The three outlets filed the joint lawsuit two days after their reporters were blocked from the White House and prevented from doing their jobs. The reporters’ entry badges were disabled on Saturday, a day after Trump had suddenly announced he was barring the outlets because of reporting he found to be “fake news.”

This morning, the banned TV networks were reporting from an intersection just outside the White House complex. Also Monday, CNN was removed from its pool duties, which are shared by the major networks. It had been scheduled to cover the president’s trip to New York. In an email, the TV pool, which consists of the five major networks, wrote that there would be no replacement coverage following the White House actions.

The White House did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the lawsuit. But on his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote this morning that he “cherished” what he called a free press. As often is the case with court-related matters, Trump's  statement indicates he is clueless about the law governing the press. Trump suggested that he, the president, gets to decide what is published and what is not. That, of course, is not how the U.S. system works -- as most middle-school students likely know by now. From the Trump statement: 

“The White House is not instituting an assault on the Free Press, something which I cherish,” the president said in his post. “It is instituting an assault on the FAKE NEWS, something that has grown like Cancer in our beloved United States of America. It is corrupt, purposeful, pervasive, fully coordinated, and totally out of control. It is a threat to our National Security, and must be stopped, NOW!”

Somehow, America has allowed a man to take over our highest office, with the idea that the president determines what is "fake news," what is "totally out of control," and is a "threat to our national security." This is one of many signs that Trump wants to turn the U.S. into an authoritarian state along the lines of Putin's Russia. It's also a sign that Trump simply is not fit for his office -- or any office for that matter -- although no one in authority seems willing to do what it takes to get him out of power and end the monstrous damage he is doing to our democracy.

Trump's fitness for office, or lack thereof, seems to be running through the minds of his own staff members.

That was evident in a jointly published report at Daily Beast and Yahoo! News that suggested the absence of Chief of Staff Susie Wiles prompted Trump to announce his ill-considered media ban. Under the headline "White House staff blame media ban on president being left unsupervised," Evgenia Anasastakos writes:

Blindsided senior White House staffers learned of President Donald Trump's media ban at the same time as the rest of the country, a new report alleges.

Trump's directive to ban reporters from CNN, MS NOW, and Politico came while Chief of Staff Susie Wiles was out of town, sources tell Politico, with many in the West Wing unaware of the move until they saw the president's Friday afternoon announcement on Truth Social.

Trump baselessly accused the trio of news organizations of reporting "LIES" but did not point to a particular article that pushed him over the edge. Sources tell Politico that the president has floated the idea of a media ban previously and decided to act on it while his top adviser was not in the building.

More than a dozen current and former Trump officials tell Politico that they were "puzzled by the development." The site added that others in the administration reached out unsolicited to say that the 80-year-old Trump's edict was a "head-scratcher." 

That White House staffers say the president of the United States -- the so-called "Leader of the Free World" -- needs to be "supervised" to keep him from making rash decisions should be a "head-scratcher" to all Americans. It raises this question: Do Trump's own staffers suspect he is not fit for office unless Susie Wiles is around to keep him on track? Here is more from Evgenia Anasastakos about reporting from Daily Beast and Politico:

Sources tell (Politico) that Trump has also mentioned relocating the White House press to the adjacent Eisenhower Executive Office Building, which is part of the White House complex but would deny reporters direct access to the West Wing.

MS Now, CNN, and Politico each sent reporters to the White House on Saturday. White House security revoked their physical badges on arrival and denied them entry. Barred reporters for MS Now and CNN moved off the White House grounds and gave live segments from across the street. 

"I attempted to scan my badge, which we have to do to be able to get into the White House grounds; it did not work," Gardner said on the air. "There was a red beeping light, and so the officer asked me to hand over my badge; he said that it was disabled." 

A source close to the White House tells Politico that there have been discussions about expanding the ban to other outlets. Trump suggested Friday that The New York Times and The Washington Post may be future additions. 

What happens when Susie Wiles returns to the Oval Office and informs the president, as seems likely, that she agrees with legal experts who say Trump's action was unwise, unconstitutional, and probably will be reversed in court? Will this be time for another TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out) moment? Time will tell on that, but this clearly seems to be litigation that could, and should, be avoided. The clearest obstacle Trump's ban faces probably rests with "viewpoint discrimination, which Trump has pretty much admitted to, per the Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University. Jameel Jaffer, the institute's executive director, states:

The First Amendment prohibits the president from punishing journalists because he doesn’t like their coverage, just as it prohibits him from punishing universities because he doesn’t like the courses they offer, or from punishing law firms because he doesn’t like the clients they represent. With so many courts having ruled against him on exactly this point, you’d think President Trump would have learned this lesson by now. If President Trump means to expel these news organizations from the White House press pool, his action is doubly unconstitutional because the press pool is a ‘public forum’ under the First Amendment, which means the president can’t exclude journalists from it on the basis of their viewpoints.

So far, Trump has shown no sign of chickening out on this one. Perhaps that is because the cost of going to court to defend a public policy that has no defense under the law typically is borne by  taxpayers, folks like you and me. Lawsuits brought against Trump personally usually are financed by political action committees or similar support groups. In short, Trump loves to fight for "justice" when he doesn't have to pay for it. Here is more from the Daily Beast/Yahoo! report:

Despite criticisms from his own MAGA base that he is infringing upon the First Amendment, sources tell Politico that Trump intends for his ban of CNN, MS Now, and Politico reporters to be permanent.

"It's real and permanent as far as POTUS is concerned," a source told the site.

In their joint complaint, the three banned media outlets stated:

“Without notice or process, the White House revoked our journalists’ credentials because it objected to our reporting,” they said. Left unchallenged, this threatens press freedom and the public’s right to independent journalism free from government interference. . . .” 

They say they’re being banned from doing their jobs at the White House “for one simple reason: (Trump) dislikes the content of the coverage of him and his administration.”

“President Trump has said in no uncertain terms that he would prefer only to be covered by news organizations and reporters who praise his administration,” says the complaint, filed in the name of the three outlets and three correspondents who were denied access Saturday.

In legal terms, that’s known as “viewpoint discrimination” — the government singling out specific media outlets for the content of what they say or publish. That legal principle is at issue in many of the court cases around Trump’s treatment of the media and would likely be at play this time.

The case was assigned to U.S. District Judge Timothy Kelly, whom Trump nominated during his first term in the White House.

The head of the White House Correspondents' Association (WHCA) made it clear the stakes are high and filled with implications for foundational, constitutional freedoms -- the kind of  long-settled issues that many Americans likely assumed never would be challenged  in our lifetimes. But that was before Trump came along, with the idea that a president can rewrite the law in any way that pleases him:

The WHCA’s president, Jacqui Heinrich, called on the Trump administration to immediately restore the three outlets’ access. Heinrich is right because the White House has no case, and it does not merit going to court -- with taxpayers paying the bill that Trump seems determined to ring up.

Heinrich continued: “The implications extend beyond these organizations: a standard used to exclude one news outlet because of its coverage could be applied to any outlet in the future,” Heinrich said. “The American people, through a free and independent press, must be able to scrutinize those elected to power, regardless of whether government officials view it favorably.”

Congressional Democrats seem ready to draw blood over a possible Trump Jr.-Russia scandal, while mainstream media reacts with a collective shrug

Vladimir Putin confers with Umar Kremlev (Reuters)

In our Tuesday post about Russian oligarch Umar Kremlev and his role in financing Donald Trump Jr.'s wedding party in the Bahamas, we noted the following: "The more you learn about Kremlev, the sketchier he sounds. And it's hard not to think Trump Jr. might someday regret getting involved with the Russian."

Now, investigative journalist and author Craig Unger is out with a Substack piece that provides more insight about Kremlev and his ties to Russian president Vladimir Putin

Unger, who has been a contributing editor at Vanity Fair and a fellow at New York University's Center on Law and Security, is almost certainly America's No. 1 expert on ties between the Donald Trump family and Russia. He has written five best-selling books about the Republican Party's assault on U.S. democracy, with two of those works focusing directly on Donald Trump's connections to Russian mobsters and political figures, ties that date to the late 1980s. Unger's most recent book is Den of Spies: Reagan, Carter, and the Secret History of the Treason That Stole the White House (HarperCollins, 2024).

In the latest column at his American Kompromat page on Substack, Unger writes under the title "The Case of the Secret Benefactor." In a sub-header, Unger notes "The New York Times calls him a "Russian businessman."But Umar Kremlev is a twice-convicted, Kremlin-anointed oligarch whose entire fortune depends on his ties to Vladimir Putin."

Unger begins with a hypothetical that spotlights the absurdity of Kremlev's involvement with the Trump nuptials:

If your father was president of the United States, you were getting married and were down to your last $300 million, who would you get to finance your wedding party?

How about a twice-convicted (extortion and battery) Russian with deep ties to Vladimir Putin’s inner security circle?

On September 14, Propublica reported that Donald Trump, Jr celebrated his wedding to Bettina Anderson in the Bahamas in May with “scantily-clad dancers in stilettos and sailor caps” performing in “a lavish, three-day party held across a pair of ultra-exclusive private islands,” all bankrolled by Russian oligarch Umar Kremlev who shelled out hundreds of thousands of dollars for the festivities.

Now, some of you might jump to the conclusion that this is more evidence that Trump is in bed with Russia (a relationship I’ve documented in two books (House of Trump, House of Putin and American Kompromat) as well as my 39-post Trump Russia Timeline on this Substack column.)

But President Trump himself has repeatedly denounced such conclusions as part of a “Russia Hoax.” And, in an Instagram post, bride Bettina Anderson assured the country that even though a wealthy Russian close to Putin did foot the bill, there was nothing nefarious going on. She wrote:

“It was never intended to be our wedding weekend. When our original wedding plans changed, we simply decided to get married before it and arrived at an already planned weekend as newlyweds. Our dear friend Umar very generously hosted two incredible nights of celebrations for us AFTER our wedding. It was an extraordinarily generous wedding gift from a friend, and something for which we were and remain incredibly grateful.”

Then, separately in the same post, on the political-motive point, Anderson writes:

“Friendship doesn’t require a political motive. Generosity doesn’t automatically come with an agenda. And sometimes a wedding gift is simply a wedding gift.” 

Unger suggests that seems to wrap things up in a nice, neat package. But then he says, "Not so fast":

So, there you have it.

Nothing to see—right

Well, in fact, Umar Kremlev, the “dear friend” of Bettina’s and Don, Jr.’s who spent hundreds of thousands of dollars for their three-day party, happens to be a Russian oligarch who became close to President Vladimir Putin as he worked his way into Putin’s security-service patronage network.

Kremlev’s ties to the Kremlin date to his leadership of a notorious, government-backed biker gang called the Night Wolves, which reportedly brought him close to Alexei Rubezhnoi, who now leads Putin’s presidential security service. In 2017, Kremlev took over the Russian Boxing Federation, after Rubezhnoi personally intervened to put him at the helm. Later, he traveled with Putin’s entourage to China. He has since taken control of Russia’s biggest car dealership. 

The bottom line? Kremlev long has been a part of Russia's intelligence network, and in that world, friendship often does come with a political motive Unger writes:

In the intelligence world, an unreciprocated high-value gift from someone like Kremlev isn’t so much a sign of friendship as it is a means of incurring a debt which sits as leverage for Kremlev, Rubezhoi or Vladimir Putin. Propublica cited Frank Montoya Jr., a retired career FBI official who held senior counterintelligence roles, explaining that the Kremlev’s “generosity” raised serious national security concerns. “If I’m paying for your wedding, at some point, you’re going to owe me something,” said Montoya. “This should be unthinkable for the son of the president. End of story.”

And exactly who is Umar Kremlev? Well, it turns out Umar Kremlev is not even his real name. According to Proekt, an exiled independent Russian investigative outlet that’s been designated an “undesirable organization” by the Kremlin, Kremlev was born Umar Nazarovich Lutfulloyev and changed his name in 2010 after being convicted of extortion. Kremlev’s press office told ProPublica that Kremlev has “a completely clean legal record,” but that claim was contradicted by the Proekt-documented convictions and Wikipedia’s citation of Russian court records. (For a more complete look at Kremlev/Lutfulloyev’s past, take a look at Mikhail Zygar’s post, The Oligarch Behind Don, Jr’s Wedding.)

Kremlev's history becomes ugly when you consider his alleged actions toward Ukraine:

Through his sister-in-law, Kremlev is also closely associated with Healthy Fatherland, an organization described by Ukraine’s Main Intelligence Directorate as being involved in the abduction, illegal deportation, and forced relocation of Ukrainian citizens, children included.

Given that Donald Trump, Jr. has enough clout with his father that he is said to have played a leading role in making J.D. Vance the vice president, it is somewhat shocking that he would allow one of Putin’s associates to openly play a key role in financing such a significant family occasion. Another factor in the mystery is that Trump Jr.’s reported net worth of $300 million suggests he should be able to pay for his own party. 

Democrats in Congress already have signaled they are taking the Trump Jr. wedding-party story seriously. Unger writes:

Rep. Robert Garcia (D-Calif.), ranking member of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, has asked for any communications with the White House regarding financing or attendance at Trump’s recent wedding parties.

In a speech from the Senate floor, Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) called it “naked corruption in plain view.”

“This was a Russian party organized and paid for by someone in Vladimir Putin’s inner circle,” Murphy said. “This has never happened before in the history of the United States of America. Never before has a foreign enemy of the United States paid for the family wedding of the president.”

Similarly, Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), the ranking member on the House Judiciary Committee, accused the Trump administration of “Putin-style corruption and authoritarianism” in a Monday social media post.

 “When Russian oligarchs pay for American oligarchs’ weddings,” Raskin wrote, “it’s a very sweet and romantic gesture, but we know who’s really getting married. Let the oligarchs marry — the American people want a divorce from all of them.”

--------------------------------------------

The mainstream media, meanwhile, seems to be taking a "shrug the shoulders" approach to the story. A strong argument could be made that the Trump-Russia connection is the most important story of the modern age, with democracy and any hint of world stability hanging in the balance. With that in mind, it's hard to fathom why name-brand media outlets seem disinterested. Unger writes:

Much of the so-called “liberal” mainstream press doesn't seem to see much wrong with it. ABC News cited Bettina Anderson, the bride, as saying, “It’s unfortunate that something so personal and happy can be recast as something political or sinister simply because of who someone is or where they come from." The network offered no information on Kremlev’s name change or his criminal past. 

Most strikingly, the nation’s three most powerful newspapers— The New York Times, Washington Post, and The Wall Street Journal— all describe Kremlev as “a businessman” rather than an oligarch. 

-------------------------------------------------- 

The distinction is significant. “Businessman” is a softer, more neutral occupational term, and, by virtue of its neutrality, says nothing about the source or character of Kremlev’s wealth. A store owner is a businessman. So is a contractor, a merchant, an investor, a corporate executive or any number of other roles that don’t imply anything about where the money came from, its legitimacy, or its independence from the state. It’s the term you’d use if you had no evidence, or wanted to imply no evidence, that political power created or sustains the wealth. 

The term “oligarch,” on the other hand, calls to mind Putin’s transformation of Russia into a mafia state in which multibillionaires are handed entire industries—steel, banking, or, in Kremlev’s case, a lottery, a betting monopoly and a national car dealership—on the condition that they serve the Kremlin’s interests and remain loyal. Oligarchs are allowed to become multi-billionaires reigning over one industry or another—so long as they serve Putin’s interests.

Kremlev is someone whose entire fortune was built through, and remains dependent on, his relationship with Alexei Rubezhnoi, Putin’s bodyguard. Calling him a "businessman" implies an autonomy his own history doesn't support; "oligarch" is the more accurate term precisely because his wealth has no origin independent of the Kremlin.

So, in the end, all three of the nation's most prestigious daily papers described the Kremlin-adjacent figure who bankrolled the Trump, Jr. wedding party with a softer, more innocuous term — at the exact moment when the term oligarch would have been more accurate.

That’s a striking pattern and worth asking about directly—especially since both The Times and The Wall Street Journal also omitted the salient facts that Kremlev had changed his name and had a criminal past. (The Washington Post story had one sentence saying that in 2024 it had reported that Kremlev has a criminal record under a previous name, in an article by Gus Garcia-Roberts and Les Carpenter.)

At this writing, the Times, Post, and Journal have not yet responded to my queries. But their initial coverage of the case of the secret benefactor should have made the Trump family very happy.