Report: Witkoff and Kushner pitched US control of frozen Russian money in Miami

US negotiators proposed placing some frozen Russian assets under Washington's control during Ukraine peace talks, but European officials rejected the idea, according to a Financial Times account relayed by Meduza. ^[1]

Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner raised the proposal at October 9 talks in Miami attended by representatives of Ukraine, France, Germany, the United Kingdom, the European Union and NATO, according to the account. Meduza published its report on October 15, citing the Financial Times's four sources. ^[1]

The reported proposal would shift control of part of the Russian wealth immobilised after the full-scale invasion of Ukraine. It concerns the underlying funds themselves, rather than only the income they generate, which the EU already uses to support Ukraine. ^[1][2]

According to the report, European officials refused to hand control of the assets to anyone and ruled out returning any portion to Moscow. European officials and Kyiv also questioned Washington's intentions and its different approach to putting pressure on Russia. ^[1]

The account has not been independently confirmed here, and the dossier contains no US response. It does not establish how much money would be released, the structure's legal form or governance, what the funds would finance, or whether Russia would have a role. ^[1]

Who would control the money

The fate of frozen Russian assets arose as part of discussions about a comprehensive peace agreement. US negotiators presented several options for unfreezing funds, including placing them in a structure controlled by Washington, according to the report. ^[1]

That would give the United States authority over money currently held under a different set of restrictions. The reported European response opposed that transfer of control as well as any return of funds to Russia. Those are separate objections: money could leave European control without necessarily going straight back to Moscow.

The scale makes control consequential. The report puts Russian Central Bank assets frozen in Western countries at €260 billion, with about €193 billion held at Euroclear, the Belgian securities depositary. That is nearly three-quarters of the reported total concentrated at one institution. ^[1]

Those figures describe the wider pool of frozen central bank assets, not the amount covered by the reported US proposal. The account says only that some funds would be unfrozen. ^[1]

The concentration at Euroclear helps explain why European agreement would matter to any proposed rearrangement of the assets. Washington's reported preference alone would not resolve the question of money held in Europe. The reported rejection leaves a basic negotiating problem: the parties would first need agreement on who can decide what happens to the funds.

The EU is already using the income

The European Union's stated policy keeps the principal immobilised while treating the interest generated on cash balances separately. Net revenues from those balances have been directed to support Ukraine, including through a €45 billion loan mechanism, according to the EU's diplomatic service. ^[2]

The principal is the underlying stock of assets. Interest is the income generated while money remains held. Using that income allows support for Ukraine while leaving the underlying assets frozen under the EU's stated arrangements. ^[2]

The €45 billion loan mechanism is therefore a different measure from releasing part of the €260 billion pool described in the report. One uses revenues generated by immobilised assets to help support lending. The other, as reported, would unfreeze some of the assets themselves and place them under new control. ^[1][2]

The EU also says it adopted a more durable prohibition in December 2025 on transferring immobilised Russian Central Bank assets back to Russia. Its stated policy thus combines continued restrictions on the principal with the use of income to support Ukraine. ^[2]

That policy gives substance to the disagreement described in Miami. European officials were reportedly defending continued control and refusing any return to Moscow, while US negotiators were exploring ways to release funds within a peace agreement. ^[1] Agreement on supporting Ukraine does not automatically produce agreement on when to loosen financial pressure on Russia.

A split inside the peace talks

The reported participants brought Ukraine and several of its principal supporters into the same discussion. Yet the account describes different approaches to one of the financial questions a peace agreement would have to address: whether frozen Russian wealth should remain immobilised or become available under a negotiated arrangement. ^[1]

For European governments, accepting a US-controlled structure would mean accepting a change in authority over at least part of that wealth. For Washington, the reported European rejection would leave one proposed option without the agreement of officials involved in the talks. Neither side could settle those differences merely by agreeing on a new organisation's name.

The next substantive step is for the governments involved to put their positions on the record. A US description of the proposal would show what Washington wanted the structure to do. Confirmation from the European participants would establish whether their opposition concerned any transfer of control, the particular arrangement presented in Miami, or both.

Until then, the EU's published position remains that the principal stays immobilised while its income helps support Ukraine. ^[2]