L.A. ballerina imprisoned by Russia for treason has been freed
A Russian-American woman who was imprisoned for treason by Russia has been freed, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Thursday.
Former ballerina Ksenia Karelina was born in Russia but had built a new life as an aesthetician at a Los Angeles spa after immigrating to the United States over a decade ago. She 'is on a plane back home to the United States,' having been 'wrongfully detained by Russia for over a year,' Rubio said on in a post on X. He credited President Donald Trump with securing her release.
Karolina's lawyer, Mikhail Mushailov, confirmed her release in a statement on Instagram. 'Two hours ago she was in touch with her relatives and took off from Abu Dhabi to the U.S.,' he wrote, adding that he had known about her release since Tuesday.
Russia's Federal Security Service (FSB) detained Karelina in January 2024 while she was visiting her parents and young sister in the city Yekaterinburg. It did not provide further details or evidence of her alleged crime.
At the time, Russian legal group Perviy Otdel said it had information that Karelina had donated just over $51.80 from her U.S. bank account on Feb. 24, 2022 — the day that Russia launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine — to a charity that sends aid to Ukraine. A spa where she had previously worked confirmed this in a statement on Facebook.
Although Russia's FSB did not confirm that figure, it said Karelina's donation 'was subsequently used to purchase tactical medical supplies, equipment, weapons, and ammunition for the Ukrainian armed forces.'
She was sentenced in August to 12 years in a penal colony for 'high treason,' having 'fully admitted her guilt' at a closed trial in the southwestern Russian city of Yekaterinberg, Sverdlovsky Region Court said in a news release at the time.
The sentence came against the backdrop of Russia's 3-year-long war with Ukraine during which President Vladimir Putin's government has cracked down on dissent. Any perceived criticism of the military is banned.
Her release was first reported by The Wall Street Journal which said she was freed in exchange for the release of Arthur Petrov, a dual German-Russian citizen arrested in Cyprus in 2023 at the request of the U.S. for allegedly exporting sensitive microelectronics.
The FSB later confirmed the swap in a statement.
Karelina's freedom comes almost exactly two months after American teacher Marc Fogel returned to the U.S. after he spent 3½ years in prison for a minor medical cannabis infraction.
Fogel had been teaching in Russia before authorities picked him up while he was carrying 17 grams of the drug at Sheremetyevo International Airport near Moscow.
He had been prescribed medical cannabis in the U.S. for backpain, but the drug is illegal in Russia and he was sentenced to 14 years.
Fogel had remained in Russian custody even as U.S. authorities won freedom for other high-profile American detainees, including Wall Street Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich, former-Marine Paul Whelan, and WNBA star Brittney Griner.
Welcoming Karelina's release, a CIA spokesperson said in a statement that the exchange showed 'the importance of keeping lines of communication open with Russia, despite the deep challenges in our bilateral relationship.'
'Much of the swap was negotiated by the U.S. government, with CIA playing a key role engaging with Russian intelligence,' the spokesperson said.
This article was originally published on NBCNews.com
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Politico
32 minutes ago
- Politico
A $40 million flameout in New Jersey's race for governor puts scrutiny on teachers union
TRENTON, New Jersey — New Jersey's most politically influential union funneled more than $40 million into this year's race for governor — only to land with a fifth-place finish. Now, its political instincts are in question. The New Jersey Education Association made its largest investment in a campaign to support its president, Sean Spiller, in his longshot bid for the governor's mansion. No other special interest group has ever spent as much in state history to promote a single candidate, a sign of an increase of big money in state races following the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision. Spiller struggled to raise his own funds — so much so that he didn't qualify for debates in the Democratic primary. He largely offloaded his campaign infrastructure to a super PAC backing his candidacy, Working New Jersey, which was funded indirectly by the union. The super PAC's spending is among the most an independent expenditure group has dropped in a gubernatorial election nationwide. Publicly, many lawmakers and union members are hesitant to speak out against the NJEA, which remains in a class of its own when it comes to political influence and has about 200,000 members across the state. But in the aftermath of a multimillion-dollar debacle, some in Trenton are starting to question the union's political prowess. Democratic state Sen. Vin Gopal, chair of the Senate Education Committee, called the spending 'concerning' and said that he's 'talked to a lot of the teachers here in Monmouth [County] and they're pretty frustrated.' 'I think the strength of the NJEA will be questioned after these election results,' Gopal said. 'How does it not?' The bet was that if union turnout was high, Spiller would be able to eke out a win. Spiller ended up earning 10 percent of the vote, a distant fifth behind Rep. Mikie Sherrill (D-N.J.), who won the nomination with 34 percent. But he earned close to 30,000 more votes than former state Senate President Steve Sweeney — a foe of the NJEA in a previous campaign. It's not the first time the union has lost a pricey gamble. In 2017, the union spent around $5 million to oust Sweeney — which at the time was considered the most expensive state legislative race in American history. The effort was unsuccessful and Sweeney won by 17 points against his Republican opponent. One former high-level NJEA official, granted anonymity to talk freely about their former employer, said that the millions spent 'didn't seem like a good investment' and could impact its ability to advocate for teachers in Trenton. 'The NJEA leadership's credibility I believe has been diminished as it relates to going into the Statehouse and fighting for issues for the association,' the person said, adding that local education associations' 'power remains the same.' A more complete picture of the union's spending will not be available until June 30, when the latest campaign finance reports covering the final two weeks of the primary are due. But as of May 27, Working New Jersey received $40 million from Garden State Forward, a separate group funded exclusively by the NJEA. Working New Jersey spent $37 million of that as of last month. Garden State Forward also sent $8 million to another pro-Spiller group, Protecting Our Democracy, that was boosting him last year. The NJEA's investment was the largest amount of spending by a single entity (excluding self-funded candidates and wealthy individuals) in a gubernatorial race from 2010 — when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on Citizens United, which opened the floodgates for unlimited super PAC spending — through 2024, according to an analysis of state-level spending from American Promise, a nonprofit that advocates for a constitutional amendment to allow limits on political spending. It's been more than a decade since the Citizens United ruling. Though it applied to federal political spending, it has also virtually eliminated state efforts imposing restrictions on super PACs. 'New Jersey didn't choose to have a campaign system like this,' said Jeff Clements, CEO of American Promise. 'It was imposed by lawyers in the Supreme Court. It only gets worse until we fix the constitutional problem the court created.' Still, there are attempts to diminish super PACs' influence. New York City has increased its coordination rules, which cracks down on candidates' efforts to signal to these outside groups. Public financing systems are also intended to curb big campaign donors. But although New Jersey does have a public financing program for gubernatorial candidates, which was implemented prior to Citizens United, it still led to massive outside spending this year. 'After Citizens United, you saw sort of a gradual uptick in big money in federal elections, and the states have been sort of catching up,' said Ian Vandewalker, senior counsel and manager of the elections and government program at the Brennan Center for Justice. 'So I think we're seeing the kind of the new heights of big money in the states, and that's not going to go away.' The NJEA's spending in the primary has even exceeded outside spending in congressional races, which are typically more expensive than state-level elections. The most spent by a single committee in independent expenditures for a primary was $19 million by Honor Pennsylvania, a super PAC that boosted now-Sen. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.) in the 2022 Senate primary, according to data compiled by OpenSecrets. Despite that heavy spending, McCormick lost in that primary. 'I think it was a very poorly calculated and piss-poor decision by the NJEA to blow that kind of money and the results prove that,' said John Napolitani, a local mayor and head of Asbury Park schools teachers' union. 'I don't even think the membership realized how much of their dollars were spent on this race, basically for a loss.' The union has previously pushed back on criticism about its political spending — particularly from the Sunlight Policy Center, an organization devoted to researching and countering the NJEA — as 'anti-union propaganda.' NJEA Secretary-Treasurer Petal Robertson in a statement to POLITICO condemned 'politicians who have gladly accepted significant financial support from NJEA members many times for their own campaigns' who have come out against the spending for Spiller. 'They never question why our members choose to support them,' Robertson said. 'They do often ask why we don't give more, so they aren't concerned about NJEA members investing in electoral advocacy. The concern only seems to arise when that investment goes to someone outside of the established political power structure. We know the usual naysayers, and they can continue with the same tired attacks, but we know our power and we own it.' At the Statehouse, some people see the investment in Spiller as business as usual. Democratic state Sen. Shirley Turner said that the union has long put its thumb on the scale in elections. 'You know, they do it all the time, it seems,' Turner, vice-chair of the Senate Education Committee, said in an interview. 'I don't know if this is any different than previously, they pick candidates, and they decide to support them in all ways, you know, including funding.' The union famously fought with Republican former Gov. Chris Christie — who likened the group to the mafia — during his eight years in office. That feud between the union and the right in New Jersey may carry on — Republican Jack Ciattarelli, his party's nominee for governor, accused Sherrill of rushing to 'suck up to the NJEA and embrace the guy who just lit $40 million of [teachers'] dues money on fire these past few months' in a recent social media post. 'What an insult to New Jersey's hard-working educators,' Ciattarelli added. Sherrill's campaign declined to comment when asked her thoughts on the NJEA's spending in the primary. It's common for teachers unions around the country to engage in political spending, though rarely to the extent of the NJEA. Notably in 2023, the Chicago Teachers Union spent more than $2 million to get its member and organizer Brandon Johnson into the mayorship. On the federal level, from 2023-2024, the National Education Association dropped $32 million on political spending (primarily to liberal groups), making it the top spender among teachers unions, according to OpenSecrets. The NJEA blew past that total in a state-level race in just a couple of months. The NJEA had a Herculean task in uplifting Spiller, who struggled to solidify his lane in the six-person primary and faced controversy during his time as mayor of Montclair. Despite Spiller's second-to-last finish, election results suggest his message — and the union's big spending — resonated in pockets of the state. He unexpectedly won Camden — a major city in South Jersey — and won Cumberland County, a rural area that has been trending quickly towards Republicans. But in Montclair, he finished in fifth. Bob Russo, a former mayor and member of the town council, said Spiller's tenure as mayor did not make him beloved by the town's rank-and-file Democrats. 'He's really not embraced by his hometown. That's your base,' he said. 'It's a shame he couldn't get more support, but it's because of [his] policies and the conduct as mayor.' Spiller's tenure as president is up this August. He'll be succeeded by Steve Beatty, the union's current vice president. After Spiller's loss, Beatty and Robertson in a statement touted the 'unprecedented grassroots effort powered by thousands of member volunteers' and congratulated Sherrill. Beatty acknowledged that 'in a six-way race with five other well-known and well-funded candidates … there were always going to be five candidates who came up short.' He also said that endorsing Spiller ensured that issues important to the union 'were part of the conversation in the primary.' 'We are proud that Sean was right there in the race alongside those candidates with deeper ties to New Jersey's political and financial elites,' he continued. 'It says a lot about how hard our members fought to change the narrative around who is qualified to step up and lead.' Unions from different sectors also spent in the race in support of other candidates, though not as much as the NJEA. And while other Democrats did outraise Spiller, no other independent expenditure groups boosting his opponents had as many resources as Working New Jersey. As of the end of May, two groups supporting Rep. Josh Gottheimer spent more than $11 million, as did two groups backing Jersey City Mayor Steven Fulop, and super PACs backing Sherrill and Sweeney spent around $4 million each. Other union leaders stand by the multimillion-dollar decision. 'I do think it was worth it,' said Melissa Tomlinson, vice-president of the Atlantic County Council of Education Associations and a member of NJEA's state executive committee. 'We need our voices heard in decision-making spaces. It's not enough for us to just be lobbying.' The NJEA counts around 200,000 members, and it's evident that not even half of them voted for their union president, who received less than 90,000 votes. 'If you were to ask [teachers] 'Is this how you want your monies used' — for a sitting president to spend millions of dollars to run for governor — they would say no,' the former high-level NJEA official said. 'And how do I think they would say no? The numbers that did not vote for him on Election Day is proof.' The union has not yet determined how it will engage in the general election. Beatty said that 'NJEA members will consider who to support in November in all the races,' and both Ciattarelli and Sherrill will be invited to partake in the endorsement screening process. In past elections, the NJEA has been a prominent spender post-primary. The union has consistently endorsed Democrats for governor, and it doesn't appear that will change anytime soon. Ciattarelli supports policies like school vouchers, which are a non-starter for the union. When asked at a recent event if she would seek the NJEA's support, Sherrill told reporters that her 'door is open to everyone.' Throughout the primary, Spiller pushed back on criticisms about the union's spending, asserting that he was not in charge of how that money was spent. He also often argued that the union represents working-class people, as opposed to big-dollar donors. 'It's never about me,' Spiller said during the primary. 'This is about, how do we change systems? How do we fight for somebody who's gonna fight for working class folks? And that never stops.'
Boston Globe
an hour ago
- Boston Globe
A public lands sell-off is struck from the Republican bill
'Over the past several weeks, I've spent a lot of time listening to members of the community, local leaders and stakeholders across the country,' Lee wrote on the social platform X on Saturday. 'While there has been a tremendous amount of misinformation -- and in some cases, outright lies -- about my bill, many people brought forward sincere concerns.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up The provision would have required the Bureau of Land Management to sell as much as 1.225 million acres of public property in 11 Western states. Proponents had argued that the region has a severe shortage of affordable housing and that developers could build new homes on these tracts. Advertisement In his post, Lee said that, because of the strict rules governing the budgetary process that Republicans are using to pass the bill, he was 'unable to secure clear, enforceable safeguards to guarantee that these lands would be sold only to American families -- not to China, not to BlackRock, and not to any foreign interests.' Advertisement It was not immediately clear whether the budgetary process would have allowed Lee to prohibit certain businesses or foreign countries from purchasing land. The process, known as reconciliation, allows bills that affect government revenues to pass the Senate on a simple majority vote, avoiding a filibuster. Senator Mike Lee, R-Utah, chairman of the Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee. Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press A spokesperson for Lee did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The four Republicans who opposed the plan were Sens. Steve Daines and Tim Sheehy of Montana and Jim Risch and Mike Crapo of Idaho. While opponents acknowledged the housing shortage as a serious problem, they rejected a public lands sell-off as a solution. 'One of the greatest gifts we've ever had in America is the public lands that have been passed down generation to generation,' Sheehy said in an interview Saturday before the proposal was struck from the package. 'Especially for us in Western states, it's our way of life for hunting and fishing,' he continued. 'I believe Mike Lee knows that, too, and I don't believe he's acting in bad faith at all.' A previous version of Lee's plan had called for the BLM and the U.S. Forest Service to sell between 2.2 million and 3.3 million acres of public lands. But the provision was stripped from the bill by the Senate's parliamentarian, the nonpartisan official who enforces the chamber's rules. The latest version of the plan would have allowed individuals and companies to buy up to 2 square miles of land at a time, with no limit on how much property they could ultimately purchase. Only land within 5 miles of a population center would have been eligible to be sold. Advertisement In addition to the four Republican senators who opposed the plan, five House Republicans said Thursday that the land sell-off was a 'poison pill' that would cost their votes for the package. The opponents in the House included Rep. Ryan Zinke, R-Mont., who led the Interior Department during Trump's first term. Donald Trump Jr., the president's eldest son and an avid hunter and outdoorsman, had been publicly silent on Lee's plan while it was under consideration. But Sunday morning, he wrote on X that the proposal's withdrawal was a 'huge win for our public lands!' Sen. Martin Heinrich, D-N.M., celebrated the plan's demise while warning other lawmakers not to attempt to resurrect it. 'To those already plotting to go after our public lands another way: Don't. Unless you like losing,' Heinrich said in a statement Saturday. This article originally appeared in
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
Chris Murphy calls birthright citizenship ruling ‘dangerous'
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) on Sunday condemned the Supreme Court's decision to rule in President Donald Trump's favor over nationwide injunctions in its birthright citizenship case. Murphy on Sunday told MSNBC's Kirsten Welker that the ruling allows Trump to 'undermine' democracy. 'Taking away the power of courts to restrain the president when he's clearly acting in an unlawful manner, as he is when he says that children born in the United States are no longer citizens, you are assisting him in trying to undermine the rule of law and undermine our democracy,' Murphy said on 'Meet the Press.' Though the Supreme Court's decision did not give Trump a complete win, it did narrow nationwide injunctions that blocked his January executive order trying to end birthright citizenship for certain individuals. By a 6-3 ruling, the Supreme Court said that federal judges can't, with perhaps limited exceptions, issue injunctions that go beyond their regional authority. 'It's really dangerous because it will incentivize the president to act in a lawless manner,' Murphy added. 'Because now only the Supreme Court, who can only take a handful of cases a year, can ever stop him from violating the laws and the Constitution.' Trump has long supported ending birthright citizenship. On his first day in office this year, Trump signed an order to deny American citizenship to anyone born in the U.S. to foreigners on short-term visas or without legal status. But the 14th Amendment declares anyone 'born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof' as a citizen of the United States. The 6-3 decision down ideological lines did not weigh in on the constitutionality of Trump's order or interpret the meaning of that clause, but the White House declared Friday's ruling to be a major victory for the administration. 'I'm grateful to the Supreme Court for stepping in and solving this very, very big and complex problem, and they've made it very simple,' Trump said of the ruling. Still, Murphy said the ruling, which will take effect later in July, only creates a 'patchwork' of citizenship laws that could differ from state to state. 'Both the Constitution and the law is clear. If you're born in the United States of America, you're a U.S. citizen,' Murphy said. 'But now because there's no longer going to be a federal policy, it's going to be different in every state. A child born in the United States, born in Connecticut will be a citizen. But that same child if they were born in Oklahoma might not be. That's chaos.'
