Opinion - Was 40-year-old Trump recruited by the KGB?
The allegation would, if true, be a bombshell. Mussayev provides no documentary evidence —but then how could he? He alleged that Trump's file is in Vladimir Putin's hands.
Mussayev isn't the only ex-KGB officer to have made such an assertion. Several years ago, Yuri Shvets, a former KGB major now resident in Washington, D.C., served as one of the key sources for Craig Unger's best-selling book, 'American Kompromat: How the KGB Cultivated Donald Trump, and Related Tales of Sex, Greed, Power, and Treachery.'
Just after Mussayev made his claim, another ex-KGB officer living in France, Sergei Zhyrnov, categorically endorsed the allegations in an interview with a Ukrainian journalist. According to Zhyrnov, Trump would have been surrounded 24/7 by KGB operatives, including everyone from his cab driver to the maid servicing his hotel room. Zhyrnov said that Trump's every move would have been recorded and documented, and that he could have been either caught in a 'honey trap' ('All foreign-currency prostitutes were KGB — one hundred percent,' he said) or perhaps recorded bribing Moscow city officials in order to promote his idea of building a hotel in the Soviet capital.
None of these former KGB operatives has provided evidence, but the fact that three KGB agents located in different places and speaking at different times agree on the story suggests this possibility should not be dismissed out of hand. If there's one thing we've learned from the first Trump administration and from the initial weeks of the second, it is that everything, including what appears to be impossible, is possible.
Also lending credence to the allegations is the fact that kompromat on Trump would easily, simply and convincingly explain the president's animus toward NATO, Europe and Ukraine, his admiration of Vladimir Putin and his endorsement of authoritarian rule. One could even invoke 'Occam's razor,' the philosophical principle that claims that simple explanations should be preferred to complex ones.
We could then dispense with contorted explanations that focus on Trump's mercurial and narcissistic personality on the one hand and American party realignments on the other. Indeed, even if true, these explanations could be accommodated as bells and whistles adorning the central narrative propounded by three KGB agents.
Naturally, Trump and his supporters will bristle. Surely, the three KGB agents are on somebody's payroll. Who wouldn't want to discredit the U.S. president? It could be the CIA or FBI, except that these are now firmly in the hands of Trump loyalists. Besides, would they have the ability to buy or coerce residents of Kazakhstan and France? Ditto for other Western intelligence services.
Perhaps it's Putin? But he surely has no interest in undermining a president who supports his policies toward Ukraine, NATO and Europe.
Somewhat more plausible would be an officer or officers within the Russian intelligence community who oppose Putin and Trump's designs. This version seems unlikely, but only at first glance, since we know that Putin's seemingly impregnable regime is actually riven with cracks.
But why would a clandestine opposition make up a story and convince Shvets to spill the beans several years ago? Wouldn't the dissidents know it's true?
Perhaps all three ex-KGB agents are simply lying, in the hope of attracting attention and bolstering their fame? A resident of Washington might have this motive, but a Kazakh and Frenchman?
What leads me to think that there might be something to the allegations is the fact that an acquaintance had a very similar experience at just the same time. A left-leaning ladies' man, he was wined and dined in Moscow for several years in the late 1980s, courted by the ladies — by his round-the-clock interpreter, as well as by a woman who approached him in a department store and invited him home.
We'll probably never know the truth. But even with no slam-dunk evidence, the allegations should be, to say the least, disturbing, especially for the genuine patriots in the MAGA camp.
Alexander J. Motyl is a professor of political science at Rutgers University-Newark. A specialist on Ukraine, Russia and the USSR, and on nationalism, revolutions, empires and theory, he is the author of 10 books of nonfiction, as well as 'Imperial Ends: The Decay, Collapse, and Revival of Empires' and 'Why Empires Reemerge: Imperial Collapse and Imperial Revival in Comparative Perspective.'
Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Jessica Tarlov also wasn't the least bit concerned about Barack Obama's prosecution.
Fox News host Jessica Tarlov shut down the Trump administration's 'preposterous' attacks on Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and others amid questions about the president's relationship with sex offender Jeffrey Epstein. On The Five, Tarlov first dismissed co-host Kennedy's suggestion that the former president may have to 'worry' about being prosecuted. 'No, I actually don't think that anybody is sweating any piece of this,' Tarlov said, citing the protection that former presidents have from prosecution thanks to the Supreme Court.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
China a critical partner to Europe, Xinhua says hours before leaders meet
BEIJING (Reuters) -China is a "critical partner" to Europe with a range of shared interests, state news agency Xinhua said in a commentary piece, downplaying Beijing's rivalry with the European Union bloc hours before a key summit between leaders of both sides on Thursday. "As the international landscape grows increasingly fraught, the anniversary offers a timely reminder: China is a critical partner to Europe, not a systemic rival," Xinhua wrote, underscoring the conciliatory tone China appeared to be willing to take during the summit if the EU corresponded. Xinhua said the distinction between partner and rival mattered, pointing out common interests including trade, climate, and global governance. "These areas of common ground should not be eclipsed by isolated points of friction," it said. European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and European Council President António Costa are in Beijing for high-level meetings with China's President Xi Jinping and Premier Li Qiang. The summit, marking the 50th anniversary of diplomatic relations between the EU and China, will be dominated by trade tensions over electric vehicles, market access and Chinese industrial overcapacity. Expectations for the summit are low after weeks of escalating tensions over tit-for-tat trade disputes, hawkish rhetoric from EU leaders and wrangling over the format of the summit, which was abruptly shortened from two days to one at Beijing's request. "Like all major economic players, China and the EU do not agree on everything. But disagreement does not equal confrontation," Xinhua said, adding that the relationship needs more trust.
Yahoo
16 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's birthright citizenship order is unconstitutional, appeals court says
A federal appeals court said Wednesday that President Trump's executive order curtailing birthright citizenship is unconstitutional. The policy, which has been the subject of a complicated monthslong legal back-and-forth, is currently on hold. But Wednesday's decision appears to mark the first time that an appellate court has weighed in on the merits of Mr. Trump's attempt to end birthright citizenship for many children of undocumented immigrants by executive order. A panel of judges on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 9th Circuit wrote that Mr. Trump's order is "invalid because it contradicts the plain language of the Fourteenth Amendment's grant of citizenship to 'all persons born in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof.'" White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson said in a statement to CBS News: "The Ninth Circuit misinterpreted the purpose and the text of the 14th Amendment. We look forward to being vindicated on appeal." On the first day of Mr. Trump's second term, he signed an executive order that said people born in the United States should not automatically get citizenship if one parent is undocumented and the other isn't a citizen or green-card holder, or if both parents are in the U.S. on temporary visas. The order directed federal agencies to stop issuing citizenship documents within 30 days to people who fall into those categories. The order drew a flurry of lawsuits, as most legal experts have said the 14th Amendment — which was ratified in 1868 — automatically offers citizenship to virtually everybody born within the U.S., regardless of their parents' immigration status, with extremely narrow exceptions. The Trump administration argues the citizenship clause of the 14th Amendment does not apply to people whose parents are in the country illegally or temporarily — citing a clause that says citizenship is granted to those who are "subject to the jurisdiction" of the United States. Those parents do not necessarily have "allegiance" to the country, the government argues, so they therefore aren't "subject to the jurisdiction." The 9th Circuit disagreed. It wrote Wednesday that a plain reading of the 14th Amendment suggests that citizenship was meant to be granted to anybody who is "subject to the laws and authority of the United States." "The Defendants' proposed interpretation of the Citizenship Clause relies on a network of inferences that are unmoored from the accepted legal principles of 1868," the judges wrote. "Perhaps the Executive Branch, recognizing that it could not change the Constitution, phrased its Executive Order in terms of a strained and novel interpretation of the Constitution," the opinion said. The issue reached the 9th Circuit after a lower court in Washington state blocked the birthright citizenship executive order in February, responding to a lawsuit from several Democratic states. The Trump administration in March appealed that ruling. It reasserted its arguments about who the 14th Amendment applies to, called the ruling "vastly overbroad" and argued the states did not have standing to sue over the order. On Wednesday, the 9th Circuit said the states did have the right to sue, pointing to the risk that states would be financially harmed by a federal policy that narrows who qualifies for citizenship. The appellate judges also upheld the district court's finding that the states are likely to succeed in showing the order violates the Constitution. The 9th Circuit's ruling was written by Clinton-appointed Judge Ronald Gould, and joined by Obama-appointed Judge Michael Daly Hawkins. A third member of the panel — Judge Patrick Bumatay, appointed by Mr. Trump in his first term — dissented in part, writing that the states don't have standing and adding "it's premature to address the merits of the citizenship question or the scope of the injunction." Supreme Court hasn't weighed in on merits of birthright citizenship — yet The birthright citizenship issue reached the Supreme Court earlier this year, but not in a case involving the merits of the Trump administration's policy. Instead, the Supreme Court weighed in on whether the district courts that issued nationwide blocks against Mr. Trump's executive order were exceeding the scope of their power — a perennial topic of debate in legal circles that has frustrated presidents of both parties. The high court's ruling last month limited the use of nationwide injunctions. In a 6-3 decision, it granted a request by the administration to narrow the injunctions against the birthright citizenship order, but "only to the extent that the injunctions are broader than necessary to provide complete relief." That doesn't mean the birthright citizenship order will take effect. Shortly after the ruling, a New Hampshire court paused the executive order nationwide in a lawsuit that was brought as a class action, after the Supreme Court's decision left the door open to that option. The Supreme Court also did not directly address whether states can still sue over the order. In the case that the 9th Circuit ruled on Wednesday, the government has argued that courts can just block the birthright citizenship order for residents of the states that sued, rather than issuing a nationwide injunction. But the states argue that would provide them with incomplete relief because people move from state to state. Bryan Kohberger sentenced to life in prison for murders of Idaho students Trump reacts to DOJ reaching out to Ghislaine Maxwell's lawyer on Jeffrey Epstein files Ozzy Osbourne, heavy metal pioneer, dies at age 76
