logo
How Trump special envoy's move to bring Tate brothers to US caught president unaware

How Trump special envoy's move to bring Tate brothers to US caught president unaware

New York Post2 days ago

WASHINGTON — White House special envoy Ric Grenell caught President Trump off-guard when he advocated for the notorious Tate brothers to travel to Florida while awaiting trial in Romania earlier this year, leaving administration insiders frustrated and questioning Grenell's motives.
In mid-February, Grenell, 58, approached Romanian Foreign Minister Emil Hurezeanu on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference and convinced him to release accused sex traffickers Andrew and Tristan Tate into US custody as they await trial on charges including rape and human trafficking in eastern Europe — without notifying anyone else in the administration, according to multiple sources and Hurezeanu's own admission.
'We learned about the Tate brothers after the fact,' a high-ranking White House source told The Post last week.
Advertisement
Grenell's actions — both in the matter of the Tates and in other delicate situations — exemplify the problems raised by special envoys, who play roles similar to ambassadors and assistant secretaries of state but often do so without the obligation to obey a formal chain of command and while carrying added responsibility as the president's personal representative.
'This was yet another example of Grenell going outside the chain of command to pursue his own goals, rather than the president's,' a source close the the White House familiar with discussions told The Post.
3 President Trump (right) walks with special envoy and interim Kennedy Center executive director Ric Grenell March 17.
AP
Advertisement
On Feb. 27, 11 days after the Munich conference wrapped, the Tates, who were born in the US, touched down in Fort Lauderdale on a private jet.
The same day, Trump hosted British Prime Minister Kier Starmer and was asked whether the president's administration had 'pressured' Romania to hand over the accused sexual predators.
'I don't know. You're saying he's on a plane right now?' a visibly confused Trump asked. 'I just know nothing about it. We'll check it out, we'll let you know.'
Shortly after, when Starmer spoke about the brothers facing investigation in the United Kingdom, the president said to him, perplexed: 'You're aware? You're aware of this? I didn't know anything about it.'
Risky game
Advertisement
While much of the media scorned Trump's comments, White House officials confirmed the president's surprise and bewilderment — and rounded on Grenell for putting the commander in chief in a tight spot.
'President Trump is on recording saying he know nothing about the Tate brothers' flight to Florida, so why did Ric Grenell even raise the issue with a Romanian official?' a source close the the White House familiar with discussions told The Post.
3 Andrew Tate, left, and his brother Tristan outside a Romanian police station May 21.
AP
The Tates' release caused bipartisan blowback — with big GOP names like Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis and Sen. Josh Hawley (R-Mo.) as well as conservative media personalities Ben Shapiro and Megyn Kelly speaking out against the White House.
Advertisement
It also sparked a congressional inquiry by House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), who penned a letter asking the State Department to what extent the US government was involved in Romanian officials' decision to release the brothers.
Almost immediately after the letter — which cc'd Grenell — was sent to the State Department, the envoy called to 'berate' a Raskin staffer, saying 'you're going to ruin my reputation,' according to a person familiar with the conversation. The interaction was first reported in early April by NOTUS.
'The State Department has failed to answer the Committee's questions and address our concerns,' the person said. 'All we have received was a short, non-substantive response from the State Department more than a month after the letter was sent.'
While the blowback over the release has died down, the question that has puzzled Grenell's critics remains: Why risk the administration's credibility on Andrew and Tristan Tate?
Grenell, a former ambassador to Germany and acting director of national intelligence, has been open about his support for the Tate brothers, whose followers among the far-right include longtime Trump confidant Roger Stone and Paul Ingrassia, the newly appointed head of the Office of Special Counsel.
Andrew Tate has similarly expressed support for Grenell, tweeting the day before his release from Romania that the envoy is helping Trump 'sav(e) America along with the entire western world by extension.'
Grenell also has extensive experience in eastern and southeastern Europe, dating back to at least his role facilitating peace talks between Serbia and Kosovo during Trump's first term.
'Was this motivated by a personal, political or business interest, or is he just a Tate Brothers fanboy?' asked a former friend of Grenell's. 'Either is a massive red flag.'
Advertisement
In a comment to the Financial Times in February, Grenell acknowledged his support for the Tates, 'as evident by my publicly available tweets'
But he has since scrubbed all posts about the brothers, including a retweet of Stone crediting Grenell for 'securing the release of the Tates.'
However, a Grenell associate says he kept up ties with the Tates even after their return, sitting ringside when the brothers made an appearance at the UFC 313 card in Las Vegas on March 8.
'Not Ric's job to make sure State knows'
Since the Tate fiasco, Grenell has continued to ruffle feathers in his various roles, sounding a rare discordant note in an administration whose key players seem to be mainly on the same page.
Advertisement
'It's like Festivus inside the White House, and the airing of the grievances is heavy on Grenell,' said one source close to President Trump, referencing an episode of the classic sitcom 'Seinfeld.'
Last month, Grenell — in an apparent attempt to apply lessons from the Tate incident — briefly mentioned to Trump that he had reached a deal with Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro to return an American detainee, but left key White House and State Department officials without any clue of his foreign dealings, according to senior administration officials.
'State Department was intentionally left in the dark, as was Rubio,' confirmed Tactic Global lobbyist Caroline Wren, who told The Post she helps Grenell with his public relations and worked on the Venezuela initiative with him.
'It's not Ric's job to make sure State knows.'
Advertisement
3 Venezuela President Nicolas Maduro speaks to Iranian officials in Caracas last month.
via REUTERS
Wren did not elaborate on why the department was left out of the loop, but Grenell had asked Maduro to free Air Force veteran Joe St. Clair as a sign that the dictator was willing to work with the Trump administration, multiple sources say.
In return, Grenell suggested to Maduro that Trump would extend Chevron's license to import Venezuelan oil — but that was news to the administration, which has consistently supported the president's desire to expire the license May 27, according to senior officials.
Some far-right influencers — such as firebrand Laura Loomer and many of Grenell's closest associates, including Wren — say the license should be extended to block China from cornering the Venezuelan oil market.
Advertisement
When The Post contacted Grenell May 15 to ask whether he was holding discussions with Caracas about extending the Chevron license, Grenell directed another lobbyist — former Rep. Aaron Schock (R-Ill.) — to contact The Post to push the China angle.
Schock, who according to Wren also helps Grenell with PR, also consults for South Florida oil magnate Harry Sargeant, whose license to operate his oil-trading company in Venezuela was canceled by Trump's anti-Maduro policy, a former friend of Sargeant's told The Post.
Schock did not reply to a request for comment on his association with Sargeant, whom Wren called a 'good friend' she 'talks to all the time.'
Sargeant, however, denied that Schock or Grenell were advocating on his behalf.
On a more ominous note, law enforcement sources say Grenell's deal with Maduro to return a single detainee could encourage Caracas officials to direct the Tren de Aragua cartel to kidnap more Americans for use as bargaining chips to reduce US sanctions.
The FBI has said that the Venezuelan dictator controls the brutal cartel recently listed as a foreign terrorist organization.
The same day the Chevron oil license expired, the State Department issued a stark travel warning to Americans, urging them not to visit Venezuela due to risk of wrongful detention, torture, kidnapping and crime.
Closer to home, Grenell — who is also president and interim executive director of the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts — caused another firestorm when he dismissed center vice president Floyd Brown May 28 after Brown refused to disown comments promoting 'traditional marriage' and criticizing the influence of gay staffers in the Republican party.
'The only explanation is the one given to me at the time of my firing: 'Floyd, you must recant your belief in traditional marriage and your past statements on the topic, or you will be fired,'' Brown posted to X May 29. 'Needless to say, I refused to recant and was shown the door. My beliefs are much more common to Biblical Christianity.'
As multiple sources pointed out, the firing appeared to run counter to Trump's main reason for appointing Grenell, who is openly gay, in the first place: To rid the DC venue of Diversity, Equity and Inclusion policies.
'From being rebuked on the Chevron license, to his connection to the Tate Brothers, to allegations of firing a Kennedy staffer over Christian beliefs, Ric Grenell keeps finding new and creative ways to embarrass himself and those around him,' a source close the the White House familiar with the situation said.
The State Department, Romanian Foreign Ministry, Schock, Grenell and an attorney for the Tates did not respond to requests for comment.

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?
Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?

USA Today

time15 minutes ago

  • USA Today

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted?

Republicans, be so for real. This embarrassing government is what you wanted? | Opinion Is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process they chose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Show Caption Hide Caption Six takeaways from the President Donald Trump, Elon Musk feud From disappointment to threats, here are six takeaways from the public spat between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk. Anyone could have predicted that President Donald Trump's second term was going to be an absolute disaster. I doubt even Republicans realized it would be this bad. Amid Trump's feud with Elon Musk, our tanking economy and our dysfunctional Congress, it seems that the next three and a half years are going to be rough on the country. I have to imagine that some Republican voters have buyer's remorse but would never admit it. I also realize that, for many Republican voters, a chaotic government is better than one that's run by a Democrat. They would rather watch our country become an international laughingstock than vote for someone who would run a stable, albeit more liberal, government. They would rather have millions lose health care than have a Democrats in power. I'll be the first to admit that Kamala Harris wasn't a perfect presidential candidate, but she was competent. She was energetic. She could ensure the country stayed on its course and continued to be a place where people felt secure. We could have had that. And Republicans in Congress would have done their job. Instead, we have this. So, this far into Trump's chaotic reign, I have to ask. Is this really what Republicans wanted? President Donald Trump vs. Elon Musk. Really? In case you missed it, Trump and Musk have gone from inseparable to enemies in a matter of hours. Musk, who was previously charged with leading the Department of Government Efficiency, has gone on X (previously Twitter) to allege that Trump was included in the Jeffrey Epstein files and whine that the Republicans would have lost the election without him. Trump, in response, has threatened to cancel all of Musk's contracts with the federal government. It's almost entertaining, in the way high school drama is entertaining. If only the entire country weren't on the verge of suffering because of it. Opinion: Musk erupts, claims Trump is in the Epstein files. Who could've seen this coming? If Harris had been elected, I doubt she would have made a narcissistic man-child one of her closest advisers in the first place – not just because Musk endorsed Trump, but because he was and continues to be a liability. She wouldn't have created DOGE and then allowed it to be a threat to Americans. Republicans, however, were unwilling to acknowledge the baggage that came with having Musk on their side. Now we have the president of the United States embroiled in a childish social media battle with the world's richest man. Think about how stupid that makes the country look. Is this what Republicans wanted? Is that what they still want? Surely they knew that the Trump-Musk partnership, like many of Trump's alliances, was going to implode. They are so scared of progressivism that they would rather have pettiness and vindictiveness in the White House. The American economy is not doing well. You wanted this? Trump, ever the businessman, has decided that making everything more expensive is what will make our country great again. His tariffs are expected to cost the average family $4,000 this year, according to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. I thought Republicans were the party of the working class. I thought they were supposed to care about grocery prices and the cost of living. But with the insanity of Trump's tariffs, a cooling job market and tax cuts that protect the wealthy, it seems like nothing is actually getting better for the average American. Our economy actually shrank. Opinion: Who would want to have babies under a Trump administration? Not me. Again, Republicans, you really wanted this? You were so scared of a government that was slightly more liberal that you would let everything get more expensive for working families? What were you afraid of – taxing billionaires? Helping first-time homebuyers? Harris' 'opportunity economy'? It seems like none of you thought this through. Or, worse, you did. The Republican Congress is a joke Another element of Trumpism is the fact that Republicans in Congress seem to be fine with the way he is completely dismantling the United States government. They don't care that his One Big Beautiful Bill Act is going to add to the deficit, so long as it's a Republican putting us further into debt. Some of them, like Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, failed to even read the bill before voting for it. Their lack of interest is so substantial that she just admitted it openly. Opinion: Why can't Democrats take advantage of all this obvious Republican failure? If Harris had been elected, there would be no need for Congress to monitor her every move (even if they're failing to do that with Trump). Instead, we may have seen a legislature that, while divided, was able to function. We would have had checks and balances and likely significantly fewer executive orders, none of which would have tried to rewrite the U.S. Constitution. Once again – is this really what Republicans still want? Are they so scared of the possibility of trans people having rights or undocumented immigrants receiving due process that they would choose a government that won't stand up to tyranny? Would they really elect a tyrant in the first place? They did, so I suppose they must be OK with all of it. I can't get over the fact that Republicans willingly chose chaos over stability. They would rather say they won than have a functioning government or a stable economy. They would rather see our country suffer than admit that Trump is a raging lunatic. That isn't patriotism – it's partisanship. They would rather give Musk billions in federal contracts than help Americans in any way. This is what nearly half the country chose for the rest of us. And it doesn't seem like anyone is embarrassed about it. Follow USA TODAY columnist Sara Pequeño on X, formerly Twitter: @sara__pequeno

Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board
Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board

Yahoo

time21 minutes ago

  • Yahoo

Elon Musk's feud with Donald Trump is hugely damaging to Tesla but don't expect any action from the board

How should a corporate board respond to a CEO publicly insulting and shaming a sitting president? It's not a question that most need to consider, since few chief executives dare to directly criticize the White House. When CEOs do speak out against a federal directive, their messages are usually delivered behind closed doors, or in a collective open letter. But this week, Elon Musk changed all that and forced the issue in a prolonged public spat with Donald Trump. The pair had a much-anticipated falling out over Trump's budget, also referred to as the 'big beautiful bill,' on Thursday, which quickly got personal. Musk asked his social media followers if it was time to create a new political party, said that Trump's tariffs would cause a recession, and even claimed that Trump's name was in government documents about Jeffrey Epstein, the convicted sexual offender. 'That is the real reason they have not been made public,' Musk wrote. The feud has already been costly for Musk and his many businesses, including Tesla. The automaker's shares took a tumble as the back-and-forth took over the news cycle, dropping 14% in on Thursday, and costing shareholders $150 billion. Now analysts warn that feuding with Trump could cost Tesla billions, considering that Trump could repeal electric vehicle tax credits and other measures that have boosted Tesla's earnings. The company could also face increasing regulatory obstacles around its autonomous driving vehicles, the technology that is meant to drive Tesla's future and has been cited by stock watchers as a reason for the stock's sustained eye-popping performance. Tesla bull and Wedbush analyst Dan Ives seemed to speak for investors early on Friday when he wrote in a research note: 'This needs to calm down.' At a regular company, there's a solid chance that the events of the last few days would spur a board to dismiss a CEO. But will the Tesla board fire Musk to protect public shareholders from potential damages? 'They should,' Charles Elson, founding director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware, told Fortune. 'But they won't.' The Trump-Musk spat is just the latest in a series of events that have forced the question of what role Tesla's board actually plays in the company. 'Over the years, Musk's behavior has become more outrageous,' says Elson. 'The board's lack of response makes you wonder, 'Who are these people? Why are they there?'' It has long faced criticisms for being too close to Musk, and therefore willing to overlook numerous management issues. For instance, it famously approved Musk's much-disputed 2018 pay package for $56 billion, and has silently witnessed a year of high-profile divisive behavior from the chief executive that has led to public protests and customers distancing themselves from the company. And recent allegations about Musk's drug use echo reports that have surfaced in the past without putting Musk's role at risk. There are a few contributing factors as to why that is. Musk is a controlling shareholder in Tesla, where he holds 22% of the voting power, making it extra challenging for board members to have the votes needed to force him out. The board is also in a tough position in that firing Musk could tank the stock, considering that his name is so closely associated with the company. Many directors also have particularly close ties to Musk. That includes his brother Kimbal Musk, an entrepreneur and restaurant owner, and Joe Gebbia, a cofounder of Airbnb and a friend of Musk's. There are no car industry or green energy CEOs in the group, as one might expect at a typical EV company. The directors are also paid very well. This year, a Delaware court ordered the board to give back more than $900 billion in pay after finding it had paid itself too handsomely. Robyn Denholm, Tesla board chair since 2018, earned $600 million, far more than people with the same position at other companies. The court found 'the compensation was so significant, it made it really almost impossible for them to be independent directors,' says Elson. 'It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends on his not understanding it,' says Nell Minow, a corporate governance expert, quoting Upton Sinclair. 'That's this board.' To be sure, this year, there were signs earlier this year that Tesla's directors were taking more control over the company's governance. Last month, the Wall Street Journal reported last month that the board had begun looking for a successor and selected a search firm to assist them. It also reported that the board had met with Trump weeks before he announced he would be spending less time at the White House. It seemed that between the backlash against Tesla provoked by Musk's focus on Washington, and Tesla's shrinking share price, finally pushed the board to act. But the board denied the report outright, with Denholm calling it 'absolutely false.' Even considering his own predilection for conflict, Elon Musk's latest squabble is in a category of its own. But board experts agree that to expect action from the Tesla board is misguided. 'There have been so many 'Now the board has to do something moments,' and they have failed every time,' says Minow. 'I no longer feel that there is such a thing as 'Now they have to do something.'' There are technically ways that shareholders could move the needle if they wanted Musk out. They could vote directors off the board via shareholder proxy votes, and hope that new directors would fire Musk. Or they could try to sue the board for not kicking Musk to the curb when he put the brand at risk and split his focus between Washington and Tesla. But a shareholder who wanted to do that would need to own up to a 3% stake in the company, points out Ann Lipton, associate dean for faculty research at Tulane University's Law School, and governance laws make it all but impossible to do. 'No shareholder is going to be able to show that this board is acting in bad faith by failing to replace Musk as CEO, which is really the level that they'd have to show,' she said. It's still theoretically possible that a Tesla board director could try to bring about change by suggesting Musk go. But they would have to make peace with potentially losing their roles, says Elson. 'They would say, 'Look, I will vote to move him along. And if I lose, I leave. I can't do this anymore,'' says Elson. Whether they'll do that depends on whether they're people of principle, he added, or 'people of convenience.''We'll have to see,' he said. This story was originally featured on Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data

Israel says it has retrieved the body of a Thai hostage kidnapped into Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023
Israel says it has retrieved the body of a Thai hostage kidnapped into Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023

The Hill

time30 minutes ago

  • The Hill

Israel says it has retrieved the body of a Thai hostage kidnapped into Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023

TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — Israel says it has retrieved the body of a Thai hostage kidnapped into Gaza on Oct. 7, 2023. The Prime Minister's office said Saturday that the body of Thai citizen Nattapong Pinta was returned to Israel in a special military operation. Pinta was kidnapped from Kibbutz Nir Oz and killed in captivity near the start of the war, said the government. Thais were the largest group of foreigners held captive by Hamas militants. This comes a day after the bodies of two Israeli-American hostages were retrieved. Fifty-five hostages remain in Gaza, of whom Israel says more than half are dead.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store