The intersection of commercial interests and diplomatic decision-making has emerged as defining characteristic of current American foreign policy. Recent cases involving dropped prosecutions, controversial pardons, and Gulf investments illustrate how personal business relationships increasingly influence international relations in ways that raise fundamental questions about conflict of interest, transparency, and strategic coherence.
The Terlemez Case and Transatlantic Questions
In May, Belgian authorities arrested Ismail Terlemez, a Turkish national working in NATO’s Brussels procurement office, following FBI and Defense Department investigations into alleged corruption. The indictment accused Terlemez of accepting bribes during 2019-2020 as part of scheme to manipulate NATO contract bidding. Investigators reportedly possessed substantial evidence supporting the charges.
However, in July, the Justice Department announced dismissal of all charges against Terlemez, who had left NATO to establish a Turkish defense company with significant political connections. The timing—merely two weeks after Trump and Turkish President Erdogan met during The Hague NATO summit—prompted speculation about potential political motivations, though no direct evidence of intervention has emerged publicly.
The case illustrates broader patterns wherein personal relationships between leaders potentially influence prosecutorial decisions. Trump and Erdogan share several characteristics: both blend business with politics, often involving family members in government roles. Kushner serves as prominent Trump family representative in foreign dealings, while Erdogan’s son-in-law Berat Albayrak previously held government positions despite apparent conflicts of interest.
Pardons, Dismissals, and Foreign Influence
The Terlemez case exists within broader context of controversial clemency decisions involving foreign connections. The pardon of former Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández, convicted of facilitating 400 tons of cocaine trafficking to the United States, occurred while Washington pursued aggressive policies against alleged Venezuelan narcotics operations. This incongruity raised questions about selective enforcement and diplomatic considerations overriding judicial processes.
Several high-profile American cases also involved foreign influence allegations. New York Mayor Eric Adams faced charges connected to Turkish officials, while Texas Representative Henry Cuellar and his wife were indicted on accusations of accepting payments from Azerbaijani-linked organizations and individuals. The pattern suggests systematic challenges in separating foreign policy from domestic legal proceedings when commercial and diplomatic interests intersect.
Family Business Networks and Gulf Relationships
Trump’s sons maintain active business ventures spanning real estate to cryptocurrency, directly involving Saudi Arabia, Oman, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates. Kushner’s Affinity Partners received $2 billion from Saudi sovereign wealth fund, with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman personally overriding his kingdom’s fund management committee to approve the investment. This decision created privileged access channel to future American administration—a calculation that proved prescient.
The Saudi crown prince’s November Washington visit brought promises of nearly $1 trillion in American economic investment. In exchange, Saudi Arabia secured commitments for F-35 fighter aircraft without substantive discussion of the kingdom’s human rights record. This transactional approach prioritizes commercial arrangements over traditional diplomatic considerations including governance standards and civil liberties.
Forbes estimates Trump has earned approximately $3 billion since returning to office, with substantial portion traceable to Gulf relationships. The Trump Organization pledged to avoid foreign government business but imposed minimal restrictions on private overseas entity collaborations. This arrangement effectively permits extensive commercial activities that potentially create conflicts between personal financial interests and national policy objectives.
Abandoning Anti-Corruption Frameworks
Traditional norms regarding presidential business interests during office tenure have been systematically dismantled. The administration paused enforcement of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, established to prevent American firms from engaging in overseas bribery. This legislation recognized that corruption imposes multiple costs: eroding accountability, fostering inefficiency, increasing taxpayer burdens through procurement manipulation, encouraging criminal networks, and preventing transparency.
The recently released National Security Strategy emphasizes economic concerns while minimizing democracy and human rights considerations. While assisting American business interests has traditionally been foreign policy component, the question concerns methods and boundaries. The current approach breaks with decades of anti-corruption practice, creating risks that extend beyond immediate commercial transactions.
White House officials defend these relationships by asserting presidential actions serve public interest. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt dismissed conflict of interest concerns: “President Trump left a life of luxury and successful real estate empire for public service, not just once but twice.” However, financial disclosures and commercial activities suggest substantial personal benefit from office tenure, contradicting assertions of financial sacrifice.
Strategic Vulnerabilities in Russia Negotiations
The most concerning applications of transactional foreign policy involve Russia-Ukraine negotiations. Moscow has strategically positioned Kirill Dmitriev, an investment banker with Harvard MBA, as primary contact with Steve Witkoff, the former real estate developer serving as Trump’s point person on the conflict. Putin’s diplomatic approach exploits American negotiators’ belief that economic incentives transcend geopolitical imperatives.
Putin differs fundamentally from Trump in prioritizing ideological and territorial objectives over commercial considerations. The Ukraine invasion reflected Putin’s conviction about restoring Russian imperial influence rather than enriching oligarchs. However, Putin has executed effective assessment of Trump and Witkoff’s motivations, offering access to Russian natural resources as negotiating leverage.
Wall Street Journal reporting documents how Russia dangles economic opportunities while pursuing strategic objectives incompatible with Western security interests. Witkoff’s sons are reportedly leveraging his diplomatic role for commercial opportunities, creating additional conflict layers. Kushner’s involvement—given his belief that economic incentives resolve international disputes—adds another dimension to negotiations where one side views geopolitical imperatives as primary while the other emphasizes commercial arrangements.
Implications for Alliance Management and Policy Coherence
This transactional approach creates multiple strategic vulnerabilities. First, it establishes precedent wherein personal relationships and commercial interests potentially override institutional processes and legal frameworks. When prosecutions can be dropped or pardons issued based on diplomatic considerations involving business connections, it undermines rule of law both domestically and in international perceptions of American consistency.
Second, adversaries can exploit known commercial motivations to manipulate policy outcomes. Putin’s strategy with Ukraine negotiations illustrates this dynamic—offering economic incentives to negotiators susceptible to such appeals while pursuing incompatible strategic objectives. This creates asymmetric vulnerability wherein one party views negotiations as zero-sum territorial contest while the other seeks commercial arrangements.
Third, traditional allies may recalibrate their relationships when perceiving that access and favorable treatment depend on commercial arrangements rather than shared values or strategic alignment. NATO members and Asian partners observing preferential treatment for Gulf states based on investment commitments may question alliance reliability and adjust their own policies accordingly.
Fourth, the approach undermines American soft power and moral authority in promoting governance standards, transparency, and anti-corruption measures globally. When the United States pauses Foreign Corrupt Practices Act enforcement while pursuing commercial relationships regardless of partner governance records, it forfeits credibility in advocating for reforms elsewhere.
Long-Term Consequences and Accountability Deficits
The immediate beneficiaries of this approach include Gulf monarchies gaining advanced military capabilities without governance reforms, oligarchs securing access through commercial channels, and family members of officials capitalizing on their proximity to power. The costs appear more diffuse but potentially more substantial: eroded institutional integrity, compromised strategic decision-making, exploitable vulnerabilities in negotiations with adversaries, and damaged alliance cohesion.
Historical precedents suggest that mixing personal commercial interests with foreign policy creates risks that eventually materialize. The question is not whether conflicts of interest exist—they manifestly do—but whether institutional guardrails remain functional enough to prevent those conflicts from producing catastrophic policy failures.
For adversaries and competitors, the current environment offers opportunities to leverage American vulnerabilities. States understanding that access and favorable treatment correlate with commercial arrangements rather than strategic alignment can adjust their engagement strategies accordingly. Those recognizing that key officials prioritize business opportunities can structure negotiations to exploit these motivations, potentially achieving outcomes that serve their interests at American expense.
The absence of effective oversight mechanisms or accountability structures means these dynamics will likely intensify rather than moderate. Congress lacks political will to enforce traditional norms, courts face jurisdictional limitations in addressing foreign policy decisions, and media scrutiny proves insufficient to alter behavior patterns. The result is foreign policy increasingly shaped by commercial considerations with minimal transparency or public accountability.
Original analysis inspired by Christian Caryl from Foreign Policy. Additional research and verification conducted through multiple sources.
