Pakistan’s US opening looks well beyond the next crisis
Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif is expected to meet Secretary of State Marco Rubio in New York on September 22, on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly. Trade, investment, counterterrorism and regional diplomacy are likely to feature, alongside Pakistan’s efforts to encourage dialogue amid continuing tensions in the Middle East.
The meeting comes at a pivotal moment in US-Pakistan relations. The agenda is broader than it has been in years, extending beyond the security concerns that traditionally defined the bilateral relationship.
Pakistan has occupied an important place in US strategy before. During the Cold War, the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan and the post-9/11 era, bilateral cooperation expanded whenever Washington needed Pakistan’s geography, intelligence or security support. As those strategic priorities shifted, so did the scope and intensity of the two sides’ engagement.
The emerging model looks different than past collaborations. Rather than resting on one overriding strategic problem, it increasingly draws on several narrower interests, including finance, trade, technology, energy, critical minerals and counterterrorism.
Economics moves closer to the center
The clearest shift is financial. Pakistan recently requested a US$10 billion exchange-stabilization facility from Washington, and Finance Minister Muhammad Aurangzeb said on September 17 that Islamabad expects a US response within roughly two months.
Pakistan is also discussing financing with the US Export-Import Bank and the US International Development Finance Corporation, including possible support for aircraft purchases and a planned refinery-upgrade program.
At the same time, Islamabad plans to seek an expansion of its 30-billion-yuan currency-swap arrangement with China when it comes up for renewal in 2027. The current facility has been fully drawn down.
The parallel negotiations illustrate Pakistan’s balancing act: deepening economic ties with Washington while preserving its long-standing strategic and economic partnership with Beijing.
US goods-and-services trade with Pakistan reached an estimated US$11.5 billion in 2025, up 14% from the previous year, while Pakistan’s ICT-services exports rose 18.3% to $3.8 billion in fiscal 2025.
With roughly 255 million people and an economy exceeding $400 billion, the country offers a substantial consumer, labor and services market. Its position between China, Afghanistan, Iran and the Arabian Sea — with access toward Central Asian and Gulf markets — lends commercial significance to geography more often viewed through a security lens.
Technology offers perhaps the clearest example of bilateral cooperation that requires no geopolitical emergency to sustain. Software, digital services, fintech and business-to-business investment are growing because firms see commercial value, even when Washington and Islamabad differ on other regional questions.
Energy could become another practical area of cooperation. Prospective US financing for refinery upgrades would place energy infrastructure alongside trade and technology while supporting a sector central to Pakistan’s long-term growth and energy security.
Minerals offer opportunity — and a test
Critical minerals could add another economic-security dimension. Washington is placing greater emphasis on resilient mineral supply chains, while Pakistan is seeking foreign investment in copper, gold and other resources.
The Reko Diq mine in Balochistan illustrates both Pakistan’s mineral promise and complexity. The copper-gold project could eventually generate substantial activity in mining, engineering, transport and processing, but Barrick said in April that it was slowing development and extending its review until mid-2027 while reassessing security conditions, financing, capital requirements, project scope and timing.
The broader lesson is that mineral resources deliver the greatest strategic value when infrastructure, financing, regulatory frameworks, security arrangements and investor confidence all support long-term development. Pakistan’s case therefore rests not only on the scale of its resources, but on whether major projects can become bankable, secure and integrated into global supply chains.
That all said, counterterrorism is still crucial to US-Pakistan relations. On September 16, Mohammad Sharifullah, an ISIS-K operative involved in planning the 2021 Abbey Gate bombing in Kabul, was sentenced in the United States to 20 years in prison. The attack killed 13 US service members and scores of Afghan civilians; Sharifullah was apprehended in 2025 before being transferred to the United States for prosecution.
His case offered a concrete example of cooperation against a threat of direct concern to Washington. Pakistan also continues to bear a high domestic cost from militancy: its Foreign Ministry said in August that more than 90,000 Pakistanis have been killed and economic losses have exceeded $150 billion in the country’s fight against terrorism.
The fourth US-Pakistan Counterterrorism Dialogue in August addressed border security, terrorist-facilitation networks and threats from ISIS-K, al-Qaeda, Tehreek-e-Taliban Pakistan (TTP), and the Balochistan Liberation Army (BLA) and its affiliates.
From access to staying power
High-level diplomacy has also grown more regular. Sharif and Rubio met in Washington in February and agreed to expand trade, economic activity and counterterrorism cooperation.
In May, Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Ishaq Dar met Rubio again to discuss economic ties, cultural cooperation and security. Pakistan’s official account said Rubio also acknowledged Islamabad’s diplomatic and mediatory efforts.
Those contacts matter, but the deeper measure of progress will be whether they produce durable economic and institutional outcomes. More telling indicators will be long-term US private investment, economic dialogue that survives political disagreements, mineral and technology projects that move from announcement to implementation and counterterrorism coordination that continues even when no immediate emergency dominates Washington’s agenda.
Education, professional exchanges, business networks and technology partnerships provide another, quieter layer of continuity. These channels rarely draw the attention of summit diplomacy, but they can sustain links between the two countries when official relations grow more difficult.
Pakistan’s simultaneous engagement with China reinforces this broader logic. Beijing remains a long-term strategic partner in infrastructure, finance and trade. Washington offers different advantages: access to the dollar-centered financial system, American capital, technology and global commercial networks. Gulf states add energy, investment, remittances and security ties.
These relationships all serve different purposes. Diversification widens Islamabad’s room to maneuver, giving Pakistan greater flexibility in pursuing its economic and strategic interests across multiple partnerships.
Pakistan does not need to recreate the sweeping US partnerships of the Cold War or Afghanistan era. A narrower arrangement may prove more sustainable precisely because neither side must depend on a single strategic bargain. But what’s clear as Sharif heads to New York is that Pakistan has Washington’s attention again.
Saima Afzalis a researcher specializing in South Asian security, counterterrorism and broader geopolitical dynamics across the Middle East, Afghanistan and the Indo-Pacific. She is currently a research scholar at Justus Liebig University, Germany.
Egypt reaffirms rejection of Palestinian displacement in talks with US Jewish organisations
Egyptian Foreign Minister Badr Abdelatty reaffirmed Cairo’s rejection of the displacement of Palestinians during talks with representatives of several American Jewish organizations on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly, according to Egypt’s Foreign Ministry.
The meeting took place as Abdelatty attended the high-level segment of the 81st session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York.
According to the ministry, Abdelatty emphasised Egypt’s commitment to its strategic relationship with the United States and expressed Cairo’s interest in expanding bilateral cooperation in areas of mutual interest.
The discussions also addressed developments across the Middle East, with Abdelatty stressing the importance of resolving regional conflicts through diplomacy and political negotiations.
He said peaceful settlements were necessary to strengthen regional and international security and stability.
Abdelatty pointed to the Egypt-Israel peace treaty as an example of what he described as Egypt’s longstanding strategic commitment to pursuing peace in the region.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict featured prominently in the discussions. Abdelatty reiterated Egypt’s opposition to any displacement of Palestinians and reviewed Cairo’s diplomatic efforts related to the war in the Gaza Strip.
According to the ministry, the Egyptian foreign minister highlighted Cairo’s coordination with international mediators in efforts to reduce the escalation in Gaza, secure a ceasefire and advance subsequent diplomatic initiatives.
He also referred to the peace summit held in Sharm El-Sheikh last year as part of Egypt’s broader efforts to promote a political resolution to the conflict.
Israel’s Children Are Facing a Mental Health Crisis. What Will the Next Government Do About It?
Political candidates agreed during an ICAR Collective webinar that the focus should extend beyond identifying symptoms and responding to mental health crises in children to preventing those crises whenever possible
Israel Defense Forces Capt. Israel Ben-Shitrit was seriously injured while fighting in Khan Yunis. From the helicopter on the way to the hospital, despite his wounds, he called his wife to tell her what had happened. In the background, he heard his daughter call out: “Dad, do you still have hands?”
“I did not really understand the question,” recalled Ben-Shitrit, who is now running in the upcoming election on the Yisrael Beitenu ticket.
He spoke earlier this month at a special webinar on addressing trauma among children and adolescents, organized by the ICAR Collective. The event brought together political candidates to explore how they and their parties would address the mental health consequences of the war, particularly among Israel’s younger generation.
While their approaches differed, most of the platforms presented during the webinar described Israel as facing a national mental health crisis, with children and young people among those deeply affected. They also largely agreed on the need for a central body to coordinate and take responsibility for the country’s response to this national trauma.
Ben-Shitrit’s wife was by her husband’s side during surgery. When she returned home, he said their daughter asked her the same question. His wife explained that Ben-Shitrit had been wounded in the shoulder, legs, and other parts of his body, but that everything would be okay. And, yes, he still had his hands.
“My daughter said, ‘Good, because Dad promised he would keep hugging me,’” Ben-Shitrit said. “That is when I truly understood that the children are wounded too. These children are fighters no less than the soldiers themselves.”
I truly understood that the children are wounded too. These children are fighters no less than the soldiers themselves.
According to data shared by ICAR, some 19,407 children have been directly exposed to traumatic events since October 7, 2023. Thirty-seven percent of them are under the age of six.
But the number of children affected by the war is far greater. About 300,000 children have parents who have served more than 30 days of reserve duty since October 7. Others have been affected by evacuation, a parent’s prolonged absence, disruptions to their schooling, or the ongoing tension they experience at home.
Moreover, 85% of parents report a worsening of their children’s emotional and psychological symptoms since the outbreak of the war, according to ICAR. Forty percent of children are experiencing sleep disturbances, irritability, and restlessness, while 28% are displaying outbursts of anger and aggression that they did not exhibit before the war.
The dropout rate has also increased by approximately 30% since the start of the war.
Research conducted primarily between 2023 and 2025 found a 90% surge in urgent psychiatric assessments of children and adolescents at Schneider Children’s Medical Center, from 580 cases to 930. Fourteen children died by suicide in 2023, according to the National Council for the Child, an increase of 40% compared with 2022 and 25% compared with 2021.
At the same time, Israel faces a shortage of mental health professionals. By the end of 2023, the Ministry of Health reported 978 certified psychiatrists in Israel, of whom only 299 specialized in child and adolescent psychiatry.
Now, the country needs a coordinated response, according to MK Moshe (Kinley) Turpaz of Yesh Atid. He said his party believes the Ministry of Education should serve as the central coordinator.
“We all know that when you have too many partners, the child falls between the cracks,” Turpaz said during the September webinar. “The Ministry of Education, which by law encounters these children every single day, must be the case manager for the entire process.”
He said the ministry should coordinate with the welfare and health ministries, the National Insurance Institute and other relevant bodies dealing with mental health from childhood through age 18, while also creating a bridge into academia.
“We are talking about adding hundreds of millions of shekels and genuinely taking a comprehensive view of the issue,” Turpaz said.
Ben-Shitrit’s party would also place the Education Ministry at the center of its approach, but from a different perspective. He proposed changing the first hours of the school day so they are “devoted to the soul.”
Instead of starting immediately with subjects such as mathematics and civics, he said the first or second period of the day should be devoted to emotional well-being.
Let the children release what they are carrying
“Let the children release what they are carrying,” Ben-Shitrit said.
He accused the Education Ministry under the current government of failing to adequately address the problem.
“It has enormous budgets but insufficient activity,” Ben-Shitrit said. “If we take the correct budgets, change the essence of what we are doing, and change the paradigm, we will build healthy resilience and a healthier society.”
His party also supports establishing a national authority to address the issue. It would not necessarily have to operate within the Education Ministry and could instead be an independent body. Two other parties represented at the webinar, Yashar and the Democrats, presented similar ideas.
We need to create some kind of national body capable of assuming responsibility
“We need to create some kind of national body capable of assuming responsibility,” said Yashar candidate Shira Shapira, whose son Aner was murdered on October 7 while attending the Nova music festival. “But it cannot remain in air-conditioned government offices. It has to go into the field and actually be present on the ground.”
Michal Rozin of the Democrats expressed similar sentiments but acknowledged that creating a new national body would be expensive and “take time and a great deal of energy.”
“Perhaps what we actually need is a compact interministerial working staff that pools resources and coordinates all the relevant bodies,” Rozin offered. “There is funding. Many nonprofit organizations today deal with this subject, some doing better work than others. There needs to be supervision, as was already said, over the nonprofit sector and over treatment programs. And we need to synchronize all of these different bodies.”
She said that while it may “sound like the most obvious thing in the world, it does not happen.”
The result, according to MK Michal Miriam Waldiger of the Religious Zionist Party, is that children fall through the cracks.
“Some people who need treatment receive it from multiple places, while others receive nothing at all,” Waldiger said. “To have one body that coordinates the entire event and brings everything together is essential.”
The candidates also emphasized the need to focus on prevention rather than waiting until children reach a crisis point. Turpaz, for example, said that if the system functions properly, the focus should not only be on identifying symptoms or treating crises after they emerge, but on preventing them whenever possible.
“We can solve problems after they happen,” Shapira agreed. “But it is better to try to prevent them and provide people with the necessary tools before problems develop, or at least at their earliest stages … Prevention is perhaps the most important place to begin.”
But even if Israel develops a national strategy, another question remains: Who will actually treat the children?
Today, the staffing standard is approximately one educational psychologist for every 1,000 students in grades 2 through 12, according to ICAR.
“One way to expand the circle of people able to help is to create trained support personnel who can identify people in the early stages, understand who needs to be referred for more professional treatment, and identify those who can receive support within the community,” Shapira suggested. “Expanding the circle of people who can identify problems and provide support is absolutely critical because of the shortage of professional therapists.”
Rozin similarly suggested that education and medical professionals, nursing staff and welfare workers should be trained to recognize trauma, post-trauma and emotional distress, allowing them to identify problems earlier.
But Waldiger said more people could become qualified if the training process were streamlined. Today, becoming a psychologist in Israel, she said, is a “very long and difficult path, perhaps even more so than doctors, with various examinations in the middle. We need to change that entire concept and make it more like medicine. It should be difficult to be accepted, certainly. But once a person is accepted, the path toward qualification should be much more straightforward.”
She also cautioned that as the number of therapists expands, greater regulation will be needed. Waldiger said that today, people without the appropriate training can present themselves as therapists.
“Even before talking about staffing ratios, which are important, we need to regulate this entire issue of who is considered a therapist,” she said. “Then we need to define the different types of therapists.”
Rozin also called for a substantial increase in funding, even after the government increased the annual mental health budget. Last year, the government approved an NIS 451 million boost in funding for mental health services over 2025 and 2026.
But addressing Israel’s mental health crisis, Shapira argued, cannot focus solely on treating trauma. The country should also consider how to help people grow from it.
“I am referring to a psychological concept I learned about recently, PTG, post-traumatic growth,” Shapira said as she concluded her portion of the webinar. “I personally experience it in my own life. I genuinely feel that I take my pain and my personal trauma, from the unbearable loss of Aner… I have tried to channel it into action and into a sense of mission.”
She said thousands of families in Israel have taken their pain and transformed it into nonprofit organizations that benefit Israeli society, social action, volunteering, and countless expressions of mission and meaning.
The pain becomes an engine for growth. We need to think about how to create a national program for post-traumatic growth.
“The pain becomes an engine for growth,” Shapira explained. “We need to think about how to create a national program for post-traumatic growth.”
For Israel’s children, the decisions made now could shape not only how they recover from the trauma of the past three years, but also the resilience of the country they will one day inherit.
Ultimately, Waldiger said, Israel’s ability to fight its enemies depends not only on military strength, but also on the resilience of the people behind it. Soldiers need resilience, she said, including mental resilience.
“It is not only a question of how many guns, weapons, and airplanes we have,” Waldiger noted. “The question is who is sitting there and who is holding the weapon. If we do not have mental resilience, then God forbid, we are heading toward disaster.”
This report is part of Traumatech, a series developed and created by Maayan Hoffman and debuting on The Media Line. The series explores how Israel is building and exporting breakthrough mental health technologies that can transform life at home and bring hope to communities worldwide.
NASA chief: I’m only interested in “good deals” from international partners
NASA must be more selective in the way it forges international partnerships as the race to the Moon transforms from a battle for national prestige between the United States and China into a high-stakes competition for extraterrestrial real estate and resources, the agency’s administrator said.
Jared Isaacman, now in his 10th month at the helm of the world’s largest civilian space agency, told a gathering of military leaders and defense contractors last week near Washington, DC, that the 21st century race to the Moon is more than a battle of ideologies. The sweet spot for a Moon base, Isaacman said, is a relatively small region near the lunar south pole, and there are tangible implications for who gets there first.
The Moon’s south pole harbors substantial quantities of water ice concentrated on the floors of craters away from the reach of sublimating rays of sunlight. The ice inside these eternally dark craters could be used to supply water, air, and rocket fuel for a Moon base, supporting a permanent settlement and providing a springboard for future expeditions to Mars.
“It’s a big Moon, with the surface area of Africa,” Isaacman said Wednesday at the Air & Space Forces Association’s Air, Space & Cyber Conference. “The south pole is more akin to Washington, DC, when there are only so many roads and so many good parking spots that you’re going to want to occupy.”
“We want to go there to master the skills for Mars,” Isaacman said. “And when you realize there are only limited parking spots that get us access to that training environment, it creates an urgency, and we must [go fast] because the Chinese are going to the exact same locations. They are partnered with the Russians. They are going to put a nuclear reactor there, and they could potentially deny this training environment that is a necessity for America’s space ambitions.”
Isaacman said this means NASA must make better decisions on when and how to work with international partners. Other nations have a place in NASA’s programs, but only if they can meaningfully contribute to the mission, he said.
“I will tell you, though, and this is right from the top from the president of the United States: We’re only doing good deals, and we haven’t always done good deals,” Isaacman said. “There was absolutely a time where we were trying [to] make everyone happy. Let’s get a lot of flags together for a great press release, and it can [be], and absolutely has been, at times, a drag on the mission instead of accelerating it. You can’t do that, and we’ve changed that now, and as a result, good deals are happening.”
The rim crest and upper part of the rim of Shackleton Crater, as viewed by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The Moon’s south pole is located on the rim near the upper right corner of the image.
Credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University
The rim crest and upper part of the rim of Shackleton Crater, as viewed by NASA’s Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter. The Moon’s south pole is located on the rim near the upper right corner of the image. Credit: NASA/GSFC/Arizona State University
What’s a good deal?
Isaacman singled out as a good deal NASA’s agreement with the Italian government in March for the development of living quarters for astronauts on the Moon.
“They’re committing over $5 billion to building one of the first habitation modules,” Isaacman said. “It likely will be the first real habitation module that makes its way to the lunar surface. And as a result, you’re going to see two Italian astronauts on the surface of the Moon.”
Japan, too, is coming in clutch for NASA, Isaacman said, with a multibillion-dollar commitment to develop a pressurized rover to ferry astronauts across the Moon. In exchange, Japan will likewise get two tickets to the Moon for the country’s astronauts. The US and Japanese governments signed the agreement on the pressurized rover in 2024.
“That is the expectation we set for everyone,” Isaacman said. “You’re not just going to bring us a list and say, ‘I will do this regardless if it helps the mission or competes with US industry and what US industry is trying to accomplish on the Moon.’ That is not going to work. We need meaningful contributions now. The game has changed.”
The role of the European Space Agency, perhaps NASA’s most enduring international partner, on the Moon Base program remains undefined. ESA signed up to provide elements for a habitation module, a refueling module, and deep space communications hardware for the planned Gateway mini-space station in orbit around the Moon.
Canada, too, is weighing its potential contribution to the Moon Base program. The Canadian Space Agency was on the hook to build a robotic arm for the Gateway outpost, improving on the Canadian robotics systems used on the Space Shuttle and the International Space Station. The design and use case for a robotic arm on the surface of the Moon, where it must operate in partial gravity, is different from that in microgravity. It doesn’t help that the Trump administration is currently engaged in a trade war with Canada, erecting a hurdle for any potential bilateral agreements.
ESA and Canada received guarantees from NASA for lunar flight opportunities for their astronauts through their agreements on Gateway. ESA also provides service modules for NASA’s Orion spacecraft, the ship that carries astronauts between the Earth and the Moon. Canadian astronaut Jeremy Hansen took Canada’s first seat on an Artemis mission with the flight of Artemis II around the Moon earlier this year.
NASA announced in June that ESA astronaut Luca Parmitano, a colonel in the Italian Air Force, will serve as pilot on the Artemis III mission to test lunar landers and the Orion spacecraft in low-Earth orbit in 2027.
Rule by committee
ESA’s director general, Josef Aschbacher, told reporters in June that he is eager to secure seats for the agency’s astronaut corps to land on the Moon. A “meaningful” contribution to the Moon Base program would pay the fare, but it hasn’t been easy to find agreement on what that might look like.
NASA’s agreement with Italy, an ESA member state, was directly negotiated between the two countries outside the halls of ESA. The European Space Agency has 23 member states, which provide funding in three-year increments, offering a modicum of stability for ESA’s programs at the expense of agility.
Italy’s commitment to build a habitation module and Japan’s contribution of a pressurized rover offer something new to NASA, which didn’t have contracts with US companies to do that work. Those are the kinds of partnerships Isaacman said he is looking for.
ESA’s Argonaut would include elements from across Europe.
Credit: European Space Agency
ESA’s Argonaut would include elements from across Europe. Credit: European Space Agency
“We had one partner that said, ‘Look, I’ll give you a lander, a robotic lander, that’ll go to Shackleton Crater by the mid-2030s,” Isaacman said in a question-and-answer session at the Air, Space & Cyber Conference last week. “I was like, ‘The Chinese are launching there in two months (with Chang’e 7, a mission now delayed to early 2027). What good is that to us then? There will be no landing spots available at that point in time.’”
Isaacman did not identify which partner he was talking about, but it almost certainly was ESA, which is seeking a role for its Argonaut cargo lander in NASA’s Moon Base program. The problem from NASA’s perspective is that Argonaut would replicate much of what US companies are well along in developing.
Each Argonaut lander could deliver to the lunar surface up to 1.5 metric tons (3,300 pounds) of cargo, such as crew provisions, science instruments, and infrastructure, according to ESA. That is half of the payload capacity of Blue Origin’s Blue Moon Mark 1 lander, set to make its first flight to the Shackleton Connecting Ridge near the Moon’s south pole next year and far below the cargo capability of larger human-rated landers like Blue Moon Mark 2 or SpaceX’s Starship.
“We’ve got to get in touch with reality and make meaningful contributions to what NASA and the free world are trying to achieve with our space ambitions,” Isaacman said.
22 countries back call to keep AI ‘under human control’
22 countries have backed a declaration calling for artificial intelligence to remain under human direction, oversight and control, while urging the development of stronger international safeguards for advanced AI systems. Adopted on the sidelines of the United Nations General Assembly, the declaration recognises AI’s potential to improve lives, advance science and boost economies, but warns that the rapid development of frontier models could create serious safety and security risks if not properly managed.
The initiative was led by Finnish President Alexander Stubb and Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre, with Stubb telling POLITICO he hopes to build international support, including from the United States and China. The declaration calls for common safety standards, greater transparency, mandatory pre-deployment testing and independent evaluations of advanced AI systems.
It also proposes exploring the creation of an international institution to oversee AI, potentially modelled on the International Atomic Energy Agency. The initiative does not call for slowing or pausing AI development, instead focusing on managing risks while allowing the technology’s potential benefits to be realised.
Pink Supported Macklemore’s Firing. Now Activists Want UNICEF to Cut Ties With Her.
When the pop singer Pink took to social media to decry rapper Macklemore’s comments on Israel’s genocide of Palestinians — a slaughter that has taken the lives of more than 20,000 kids — she brought up her decadelong role as a UNICEF ambassador to show that she cares about children.
Now, a new petition signed by more than 160,000 people, including the backing of actor Javier Bardem, is calling for Pink’s removal from her UNICEF USA role. The petition organizers, Swifties Against Genocide, named for fans of the pop singer Taylor Swift, said that Pink’s remarks sidelined concern for Palestinian children and “fueled ongoing conflict and struggles for visibility and empathy.”
“As individuals who care deeply about the welfare of children around the world, we must hold UNICEF Ambassadors to the highest standards of neutrality and compassion,” the organizers wrote. “Palestinian children, like all children affected by genocide, deserve ambassadors who unequivocally extend support and empathy towards their plight.”
The petition is the latest example of the type of public pressure supporters of Palestine are seeking to exert amid a tidal shift of sentiment in the U.S. on Palestine and Israel over the past three years. Israel’s genocide in Gaza has dramatically soured U.S. opinion on Israel, with a majority viewing Israel unfavorably and more Americans taking a sympathetic view of Palestinians.
“UNICEF itself has called Gaza a graveyard for children. Its ambassadors are supposed to speak for those children, not attack the people who do.”
The transformations have played out in the current midterm election cycle, with candidates pushing to sever military ties with Israel winning in primaries across the country. In the past several weeks, the subject has upended mainstream popular culture, with battle lines being drawn over a stadium concert tour by pop icon Ed Sheeran.
The pressure on UNICEF to part ways with Pink is tied up with a strategy among Palestine solidarity activists to extract a price from Israel for its continued occupation and genocide of Palestinians.
For Tariq Kenney-Shawa, a policy fellow with Al-Shabaka U.S., the petition is “a clear attempt to draw a new line in the sand and make the point that choosing to take the moderate lane is unacceptable.”
“These past couple days have proven that being shamelessly pro-Israel, or even refusing to take sides in the face of a genocide, is no longer the safe route,” he said, citing a shift of the “cultural hegemony” in the West.
Though Sheeran himself — who said at his latest concert that he was listening to both sides — is not a target of Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions against Israel, the cultural backlash to his move to take Macklemore off the tour reinforced the logic of the growing movement, Natasha Lennard recently wrote in The Intercept.
Representatives for Pink, UNICEF, and Change.org did not immediately respond to requests for comment.
Other advocates for Palestinian rights reaffirmed the petitioners’ aims.
“Pink should step down. UNICEF itself has called Gaza a graveyard for children. Its ambassadors are supposed to speak for those children, not attack the people who do,” said Raed Jarrar, the advocacy director of Democracy for the Arab World Now. “Whether UNICEF removes her or not, it’s time for her to step down.”
Attacking Pro-Palestine Speech
The controversy involving Pink kicked off during Sheeran’s show at MetLife Stadium in New Jersey on September 4.
Macklemore, one of the opening acts, spoke out against Israeli apartheid and the genocide of Palestinians, addressing Jewish people in the crowd to say that criticism of genocide and the Israeli government “is in no way a criticism of you.”
After backlash from pro-Israel groups like the Anti-Defamation League — and perhaps more critically, pressure from billionaire Robert Kraft, the deeply pro-Israel owner of the New England Patriots and Massachusetts’s Gillette Stadium — Sheeran dropped Macklemore from his tour. Then came the backlash to the backlash, with other opening acts on the tour and even Sheeran’s backing band dropping out in solidarity with Macklemore.
Pink, the pop star who rose to fame with a string of hits in the early 2000s, waded into the controversy early on. After attending the September 4 show, Pink reshared a social media post from the group Stop Antisemitism that said Macklemore’s claims of a genocide were “false” and that concertgoers were owed apologies and refunds.
“I don’t need anyone fired, and I don’t need a refund,” she later wrote on Instagram, explaining why she reshared the post. “What I need is to be able to say, as a Jewish mom, ‘That scared me, and it scared people I love’ — without being told our fear is just propaganda, and without being told I’m somehow cool with genocide because I noticed?”
She added that the protest slogan “From river to the sea” and the use of the term “Zionist” have become “a slur.”
Pink said that “nobody should ever celebrate the death of a child.” She mentioned her experience as a UNICEF ambassador visiting children born in war zones. She “grieved every one of them, on both sides of that fence,” she wrote.
Yet Pink’s grief, or any celebrity’s, has done little to change conditions on the ground for Palestinian children. Just on Monday, an 11-year-old boy was shot to death by the Israeli military in one of Gaza’s apparent “safe zones.”
UNICEF, which operates in Gaza, itself reported that Israeli attacks have killed at least 300 children in Gaza since the so-called ceasefire agreement last October. Food insecurity and lack of access to clean water also remain issues due to Israel’s blockade on humanitarian aid from entering the Strip.
In her social media post, Pink said she does not speak for Israel but reiterated her stance that “Hamas is a terrorist organization. Palestinians deserve a future that honors their humanity and their aspirations.” She said she was not “going to litigate a complex war in an Instagram caption, and I’m not going to recite anybody’s slogan to earn back a follower.”
Over the weekend, the petition calling out Pink also drew the support from Javier Bardem, an outspoken advocate for Palestine and major funder of the Palestinian film “All That’s Left of You,” who shared the petition on his Instagram profile.
“She can not defend children’s rights,” Bardem said, “while not condemning the genocide in Gaza.”
The FBI Anti-Corruption Squad Was Circling Susan Collins — Until Trump Got in the Way
Reporting Highlights
Probe: In 2024, the FBI sought to launch a sweeping pay-to-play investigation examining interactions between Sen. Susan Collins and a top donor, records and emails show.
Confession: The donor, an ex-defense contractor, told agents his company won millions in federal contracts by bankrolling campaigns of powerful politicians.
Shutdown: After Donald Trump returned to office, the investigation died, a casualty of his purge of the FBI. Its closure shut a potential window into how Washington works.
These highlights were written by the reporters and editors who worked on this story.
In the final weeks of 2019, a top fundraiser for Sen. Susan Collins walked into a perilous meeting at a Corner Bakery in Washington, D.C.
For the first time in her two-decade Senate career, the Republican lawmaker from Maine was in danger of losing her seat. President Donald Trump’s dismal approval ratings were dragging her down in the polls, and she was falling behind her likely 2020 Democratic challenger in fundraising.
Scott Reed, head of the Collins super PAC, was on a mission to close that gap. Reed was meeting that day with three executives from a Hawaiian defense contractor, Navatek. A year earlier, Collins had helped their company land a multimillion-dollar Navy research contract in Maine. Now, seated at a coffee shop not far from the U.S. Capitol, Reed asked them for a $500,000 donation.
Government contractors are banned from making political contributions. More consequentially, for the company to offer donations to Collins in exchange for an official action, or for Collins to accept, would constitute criminal bribery.
But the company did have such a proposal: Navatek was hungry for more government contracts in Maine. If they cut a big check, the CEO told Reed, Navatek wanted Collins to guarantee tens of millions of dollars in additional federal funding.
To skirt campaign finance laws and conceal the source of the funds, Navatek planned to funnel the donation through a shell company. The CEO wanted assurance that Collins would know where the money came from. Reed confirmed that she would, the executive said — and that Navatek would get its government contracts.
After the Corner Bakery meeting, Navatek’s CEO, Martin Kao, sent an initial $150,000 to the Collins super PAC using the shell company. Two months later, he told Navatek executives thatCollins committed to getting the company $32 million in naval contracts, according to an internal company email reviewed by ProPublica.
Three years later, Kao holed up in a conference room to recount the Corner Bakery meeting to a group of four FBI agents and federal prosecutors. The FBI had seen through his shell company ruse, and in 2022 a grand jury indicted him for making illegal campaign contributions. No one working for Collins was charged.
Facing years in prison, Kao hoped to do less time by revealing the entire scheme.
What he told them has never before become public. The Corner Bakery meeting, he asserted, was just one episode in a sprawling pay-to-play operation that embroiled some of the most powerful figures in Congress.
Over three days at the U.S. attorney’s office in Honolulu, Kao laid out in devastating detail how his operation worked. He gave agents a 50-page document naming dozens of lobbyists, congressional staffers and members of Congress who he said helped him trade cash for contracts. Kao and his close associates had donated nearly $900,000 to dozens of politicians, allowing Navatek to establish operations in half a dozen states with over $40 million a year in government funding.
Most damningly, Kao told FBI agents and prosecutors, the company’s work for the government was of no real value. Navatek’s research under his stewardship never resulted in products the military wanted to buy, ProPublica found.
Kao’s tell-all interviews with the FBI lasted into late 2024. His confessions opened up an entirely new phase of the investigation. Agents sifted through hundreds of thousands of records seized during Kao’s arrest and found that many were consistent with his account of widespread influence peddling.
Kao had credibility issues. He was now a felon trying to avoid a lengthy prison sentence. And there were other challenges. Building a corruption case against elected officials requires extraordinary proof of a quid pro quo arrangement, in part because the Supreme Court has narrowed what counts as bribery.
Even so, by the end of 2024, the agents had enough evidence to pursue a sweeping bribery probe that could ensnare top lawmakers of both political parties. They asked their supervisors to approve a new investigation and contemplated using undercover operatives to gather more evidence. Although their effort was in its early stages, and it was unclear where it would lead, FBI agents asked Kao extensive questions about his dealings with Collins and her office.
Then Trump returned to the White House. Consumed by a campaign of vengeance, he stacked the Department of Justice with his personal lawyers and demanded a purge of anyone who had ever investigated him.
The specialized FBI and DOJ teams handling public corruption investigations, some of which were involved in Trump-related cases, were eviscerated. One of the agents who had taken Kao’s confession was pushed out as retribution for her role in investigating Trump’s attempt to overturn the 2020 election. Dozens of agents and prosecutors quit amid the department’s destruction, including the career attorney assigned to Kao’s case.
Trump’s Justice Department no longer takes on public corruption in any meaningful fashion, former officials said. The investigation sparked by Kao’s revelations is dead. And the government is no longer talking to an informant who had offered a road map to corruption in Congress.
The White House referred ProPublica to the FBI.
FBI spokesperson Ben Williamson said the agency had investigated claims against Collins years ago “and ultimately found nothing implicating Senator Collins or Senator Collins’ campaign. Any suggestion otherwise is totally false.” Williamson said the Trump administration has removed agents only “if they have been found to have acted unethically, undermined the mission, or engaged in weaponization of law enforcement.”
Williamson did not respond to questions about the new investigation launched in 2024 based on Kao’s previously unreported cooperation with the FBI.
ProPublica is revealing the existence of the case for the first time. We reviewed a trove of evidence gathered by the FBI and thousands of pages of legal records, and interviewed dozens of people familiar with Navatek, its Washington operations, and the FBI inquiry to conduct our own investigation. We independently corroborated much of Kao’s account. Whether or not Kao’s dealings with politicians amount to criminal bribery, the Trump Justice Department has little interest in finding out, and his sheer success reveals how easily influence is purchased in Washington today. This is the first in a series of stories drawn from our reporting.
Of all the politicians Navatek courted under Kao’s leadership, Collins was its most important patron. The senator’s office steered government contracts worth millions toward the company while her campaign was pumping Kao and his network for donations, according to emails seen by ProPublica. Sometimes they cut checks within 24 hours of the annual defense spending bill, which funds military contracts, clearing a key Senate hurdle.
Republican Sen. Susan Collins walks in the annual Moxie Day Parade in July in Lisbon, Maine.Scott Eisen/Getty Images
Collins’ office did not specifically address questions about the Corner Bakery meeting, the senator’s relationship with Kao and the millions she helped appropriate for Navatek.
Annie Clark, Collins’ deputy chief of staff, told ProPublica in an email that Collins’ office “vigorously” denies allegations of bribery and pay-for-play made by Kao, calling his claims “outlandish.” Collins’ campaign was not part of the discussions between Kao and the super PAC, and her office “fully cooperated” with the FBI investigation, Clark said.
“The fact that the FBI and Biden-led Department of Justice thoroughly examined the Navatek matter demonstrates this,” Clark wrote. “These issues were resolved in 2021 and concluded when the Collins campaign disgorged the illegal contributions that Martin Kao had made without our knowledge.”
Collins is once again fighting to keep her seat, in a race that could determine control of the Senate. On the campaign trail, she spotlights the funding she directs to Maine while leading the appropriations committee, which she calls “the most powerful committee in the Senate.”
She demonstrated that power with Navatek. After the budgets became law, Collins’ office pushed the Navy to award specific contracts to Navatek, emails seen by ProPublica show, even though awards are supposed to be competitive.
“I spoke with Sen. Collins office regarding the $8M,” a naval official wrote in an email on Feb. 6, 2019. “The interested company is Navatek.”
In a meeting with Collins and two campaign officials, Kao said, the officials told him the senator expected his ongoing support. Collins told him: “You’ve seen me deliver,” Kao said.
Reed knew Kao was behind the $150,000 anonymous donation, emails showed, because Kao told Reed he planned to donate through a shell company. “Very smart,” Reed replied in an email viewed by ProPublica.
Reed did not respond to detailed questions about the Corner Bakery meeting, the $150,000 donation and Kao’s allegations. “I understand Martin Kao is now sitting in federal prison,” Reed wrote in a brief email. “I never had any communications with Senator Collins [or] her staff about Martin Kao and/or Navatek.”
But an email seen by ProPublica suggests that someone must have relayed the news of Kao’s donation to Collins, just like Reed promised to do in Kao’s recounting of the Corner Bakery meeting.
Seven days after the super PAC cashed the check from Kao’s shell company, one of Reed’s subordinates emailed a Navatek lobbyist asking for Kao’s phone number: “Senator Collins would like to call Martin to thank him.”
Martin Kao, second from left, with Collins, center, at a publicity event at Navatek’s Maine headquarters in August 2019.U.S. Sen. Susan Collins via Facebook
The Navatek Method
Before Kao’s doomed reign as CEO, Navatek was a sleepy Hawaiian engineering company with a few dozen employees. It was founded in 1978 by Steven Loui, a talented engineer and scion of a powerful Hawaiian shipping family. Navatek was not a profit center but a vehicle for Loui’s passion projects, like an experimental catamaran for navigating Hawaii’s choppy waters.
The company benefited from the largesse of the legendary Hawaii Sen. Daniel Inouye, multiple former Navatek executives and employees said, whose family had been close to the Loui family for generations. Inouye was a master of earmarks, a practice that allowed lawmakers to insert funding for specific companies by name in the federal budget. The self-styled “King of Pork” steered hundreds of millions in federal dollars to Hawaii. Former Navatek employees say he was affectionately referred to as “Uncle Dan.” “Before Inouye took an interest, Congress didn’t even know our companies existed,” a longtime Loui lieutenant wrote in a 1998 op-ed.
In response to ProPublica questions, Loui said that money appropriated by Inouye made up “a minority” of Navatek’s revenue.
Inouye’s death in 2012 made the company’s future uncertain. Not only was Navatek’s direct line to Capitol Hill gone, but Congress was doing away with the abuse-riddled earmark process. Now companies would nominally have to compete on the merits for government contracts.
Kao joined Navatek in 2008 as its chief financial officer. Loui charged him with replacing Navatek’s rainmaker and eventually named Kao CEO. He sold Kao the company in return for a share of the profits.
Kao was an unusual figure among the company’s low-key naval engineers and boat aficionados. He seemed to be aping a Wall Street tycoon, telling employees they could either be “a beast or a bitch,” a former executive said. He drove to work in a Ferrari and abruptly fired subordinates who displeased him — one time, in the middle of the night. “He had very little interest in the technology,” one former employee recalled. “Martin was only interested in dollar signs.”
Kao also exaggerated and lied. He told different people he had stepbrothers whose parents died in a fishing accident or an avalanche, a former employee recalled. He lied to Loui about having law degrees from both the University of California, Los Angeles and New York University. He once told a lobbyist who raised quarter horses that he owned a herd of polo ponies, just to one-up him.
Despite his erratic behavior, former employees agree Kao hit upon an effective way to replace the lost earmarks. If the company could not rely on a benefactor like Inouye, it would develop a stable of them.
Navatek targeted the powerful members who sat on the House and Senate appropriations committees. These members could no longer earmark money for specific military contractors. But they retained the power to budget millions of dollars for equipment orbespoke research and development. Because Pentagon budgets run thousands of pages and are largely prepared in secret, it is easy for appropriators to add a line item intended for a contractor like Navatek without leaving any fingerprints.
Soon, Kao had refined a playbook. Navatek would concoct a research project in partnership with a university in a member’s district or home state, and Kao would make a large initial campaign donation. Working with a team of pricey, well-connected lobbyists, Navatek would get meetings on Capitol Hill to pitch the research to congressional staff. Navatek kept spreadsheets, reviewed by ProPublica, that listed members of Congress as the “specialty” of certain lobbyists.
Separately, Kao later told the FBI, there would be a meeting of just the key players. One engineer, who traveled with Kao to D.C. to explain the technical side of a project, recalled being sent out of the room once the subject of money came up. Sometimes in these smaller meetings, members of Congress directly asked Kao for donations, he told the FBI. In other cases, he said, Navatek’s lobbyists would relay a request from an intermediary for a specific dollar amount.
Kao told the FBI that the lawmakers, lobbyists and Navatek brass understood these donations were bribes and that the payments were essential to the entire scheme. Kao believed he was buying Navatek’s way into the annual defense budget, not winning over members with innovative engineering proposals.
“I’m not red or blue, I’m green,” he would tell congressional staffers, a former Navatek employee recalled.
While a deal was being struck, Navatek and congressional staffers worked closely on the legislative process. Every year, Congress prefaces the defense budget with massive reports describing the purpose of inscrutable line items. Staffers would include a project description so specific that Navatek would be the only logical pick.
Often, Navatek composed language that ended up, word for word, in Senate funding requests, former employees said. In 2019, for example, Navatek’s priorities were tucked into page 185 of the 307-page report released by the Senate Appropriations Committee. The committee set aside $21.5 million for “hybrid composite structures research for enhanced mobility,” “electric propulsion for military craft and advanced planing hulls” and a “test bed for autonomous ship systems.” Although Navatek’s name does not appear on the page, these were all projects the company requested, according to internal documents and interviews with former employees.
Once the budget passed, lawmakers’ staff leaned on Navy officials to award Navatek the money. Former contracting officers told ProPublica they felt pressure to go along because money from those contracts funded their office — and because members of Congress had confronted dissenting naval officials in the past. “There’s only so many battles you can fight,” one said. So Congress sometimes got its way even when Navatek’s projects made little sense.
Inside Navatek, employees referred to this strategy as “the method.” And it enabled the company to string together tens of millions of dollars in contracts. The result was the same as getting earmarks: a reliable, growing revenue stream bankrolled by U.S. taxpayers.
“It was a simple enough play. Let’s find the small states that have complementary universities … [and] let’s get access to their senators,” Eric Schiff, a former Navatek executive, told ProPublica. “I’ve met Susan Collins. You can get access to Susan Collins. Once we got the first things working with Maine, then we said, ‘Well, let’s keep reaching.’ And so we did.”
In a statement to ProPublica, Navatek founder Loui said Kao’s “unethical and illegal method of winning contracts” was a departure from how he operated the company prior to Kao’s ownership.
Kao boosted Navatek’s annual revenue from $10 million around the time Loui sold him the company to almost $40 million when he was arrested in 2020. In the second half of 2019 alone, Navatek paid a roster of five lobbying shops more than $500,000.
Even Navatek’s executives were surprised at how far their money went in D.C. “It was eye-opening for me, frankly. ‘Oh my God, all of it is for sale. It’s all for sale,’” Schiff said.
The key players in Kao’s pay-to-play deals went to great lengths to meet in person and leave no trace of an actual quid pro quo, he told agents. “That is why I literally had to fly to D.C. almost every week,” Kao later told the FBI. “Sometimes for a 15-minute meeting.”
But the FBI compiled emails, which ProPublica reviewed, that were suggestive of illegal bargains. Navatek executives and lobbyists spoke openly as if they were buying lawmakers’ assistance. In one back-and-forth, a lobbyist and a company executive described another senator as “fundamentally transactional” and having “a reputation as a pay-to-play office.”
In another message, Andy Winer, who former executives said was Navatek’s chief strategist, reminded Kao to budget money for political contributions based on how much the company wanted in congressional funding the following year.
“Oh my God, all of it is for sale. It’s all for sale.”
Eric Schiff, former Navatek executive
Winer was his guide to the political underbelly, Kao said. A consummate insider, Winer had parlayed six years as chief of staff to Democratic Sen. Brian Schatz of Hawaii into a lucrative lobbying career with a firm called Strategies 360. One of Winer’s former colleagues compared him to the slick lobbyist on the Netflix show “House of Cards” who toggles between the political and corporate worlds.
In another email exchange scrutinized by the FBI, Kao asked Winer about making a $5,600 donation to nudge along a senator who seemed keen to work with Navatek: “Would that ‘help?’”
Winer, who had already donated himself, replied, “With my contribution, I think it sends the right message.” He suggested Kao split up his donation to be “less conspicuous.”
The method didn’t always work. Once, Kao complained that a senator had reneged on a deal and he ought to get his donations back.
“You should not feel aggrieved nor should you ever put that in writing,” Todd Webster, another lobbyist Navatek hired, replied. Webster did not respond to detailed questions.
Winer said he stopped working with Navatek following Kao’s arrest. “The political contributions I discussed with Kao were understood by me to be lawful political contributions. I never participated in, witnessed, or had knowledge of any illegal political contribution, bribe, or agreement to exchange a political contribution for an appropriation, contract, or other official action,” Winer said in an email to ProPublica. “I never advised Kao to make a contribution in exchange for official action.”
Strategies 360 has new ownership that did not oversee Winer while he represented Navatek, its CEO, John Oceguera, said.
Navatek employees began to notice members of Congress visiting their East Coast offices. “You would be like, ‘Oh, there’s this senator walking around,’ and we would get a picture with them,” one engineer recalled.
While some projects involved potentially meaningful research, Navatek’s bread and butter was R&D that went nowhere. As a slideshow prepared by an executive explained, “We thrive in the valley of death,” the term for the bureaucratic gap where research languishes without being developed into a product. The slideshow noted that none of the technology had ever actually been deployed.
The Office of Naval Research did not respond to a request for comment.
In Maine, Navatek was studying ways to modify small boats to reduce the “slamming” impact felt by passengers at high speeds. With the help of the University of Maine’s giant 3D printer, Navatek made a prototype and unveiled it at a press conference where a Guinness World Records representative declared it the world’s largest 3D-printed boat. But Navatek executives knew the Navy had no plans to use the new design, former employees said.
“[The work] got rolled into a few PowerPoint slides and a white paper, and that was the deliverable,” recalled one who worked on the project. “The boats weren’t delivered to the Navy — the Navy didn’t even want them.”
Kao to Collins: “Here to Help”
The first time Kao came face-to-face with Collins, in 2018, he told the FBI, he had to pay for the privilege.
Collins would not meet unless he agreed to donate to her campaign, he said. While it is not illegal for politicians to exchange face time for contributions — in this case, just a few thousand dollars — it was not the last time Collins would seek Kao’s support.
Navatek had been eager to expand beyond Hawaii, and Maine was a perfect beachhead — a small, coastal state hungry for high-tech jobs that happened to be represented by a senior member of the Senate Appropriations Committee. Collins, more than most appropriators, likes to trumpet the dollars she brings home.
To work with Collins, Navatek hired a lobbyist, Glen Mandigo, who also lobbied for the University of Maine and was tight with her office. Mandigo asked how much Navatek wanted in funding and how much Kao was willing to support Collins, Kao told the FBI. The University of Maine did not reply to a request for comment.
In that first meeting with Collins and her staff, Kao pitched an $8 million boat hull research project for Navatek and the university. Collins seemed supportive. Not long after, Mandigo called Kao and said Collins wanted him to bundle tens of thousands of dollars for her reelection, suggesting Navatek throw a fundraiser, Kao said.
In an email to ProPublica, Mandigo denied taking part in a pay-to-play arrangement.
“I did not advise Navatek officials, nor would I advise any client, that support from Sen. Collins was contingent on campaign donations,” Mandigo wrote. He said that in his 25 years of working with Collins and the Maine delegation, “I never saw or heard of such behavior from the Senator or her staff.” Clark, Collins’ deputy chief of staff, told ProPublica it was “wholly inaccurate” to say Mandigo was close to their office.
FBI agents had collected voluminous corporate records and email correspondence between Navatek and Collins’ inner circle. Much of that evidence aligned with the story they were now getting directly from Kao.
The FBI had spotted his out-of-the-blue donations in the summer of 2018, just before Collins included $8 million for Navatek’s proposal in the defense budget. Emails showed her staff made it clear to the Navy that it shouldsend the money to Navatek. FBI agents also had evidence of Kao and Mandigo planning a fundraiser starting in April 2019. Their emails — with her scheduler and her campaign’s finance director — freely mixed talk of Navatek’s Collins-backed contract with plans to raise money for her.
The principals settled on hosting Collins for a publicity event at Navatek’s Maine headquarters in August 2019, where she posed for pictures with Kao and a model of the company’s experimental boat. Behind the scenes, the FBI saw in emails and company records, Kao orchestrated over $40,000 in donations from extended family in advance of the event. To avoid the legal cap on individual campaign contributions, the emails show, he told Collins’ team to reallocate his excess contributions to his father — which an agent highlighted and noted is against election law in a presentation to prosecutors — and sent them his father’s full name and address.
“This is perfect,” Amy Abbott, the reelection campaign finance director, emailed Kao after discussing his father’s contribution. “We are so grateful for ALL the Kao support!”
Before the event, Kao said, Collins, Abbott and another staffer met with him in private. One of the staffers told Kao the campaign expected more donations. It was in this meeting that Collins said, “You’ve seen me deliver,” he told the FBI.
Less than one month after the event, the Senate released a draft of the defense budget containing $21.5 million for Navatek’s pet projects in Maine. Kao emailed a Collins campaign fundraiser — who would in theory have nothing to do with a government contract — four days later, saying, “Thanks again for all the support from Sen Collins.”
“I’ve been involved in many tight races in the past and understand last minute ‘needs’ come up,” he continued. “We are here to help anyway we can … financially or whatever.”
Kao’s desire to donate even more money led to the fateful Corner Bakery meeting with the head of the Collins super PAC, called the 1820 PAC, Kao told the FBI. Unlike Collins’ campaign, which could accept only $5,600 per election from individuals, the super PAC could accept unlimited contributions.
The super PAC emailed Kao a memo before the meeting stressing the need to raise money with “urgency.” At the meeting, Kao and Reed, the super PAC’s chair, hammered out a deal for a six-figure donation, Kao told the FBI. Over email, Kao informed Reed of his shell company scheme, saying he had clearedit with his lawyer. “They are super vague and very difficult to get any background info on,” Kao reassured him. “Thanks for doing this,” Reed replied.
The FBI spoke to the other Navatek executives at Corner Bakery, who confirmed the meeting took place. One, David Kring, the company’s top scientist, told ProPublica he had no memory of what was discussed.
The other, Duke Hartman, told an FBI agent it was just “a get to know you meeting” with the chair of the super PAC and they did not discuss the “particulars of a donation.” Agents, records show, came to believe Hartman was lying about his role in Kao’s pay-to-play operation and would name him as a formal subject of a future investigation. Hartman was not charged. He did not respond to a detailed request for comment.
A few weeks after the $150,000 check to the Collins super PAC cleared, in February 2020, Kao and his team met with Collins’ office and secured a new round of funding.
“We were very warmly received,” Kao reported to his colleagues in an email obtained by the FBI. “Excellent meeting. Total of $32M will be supported.” Records show the Senate allocated at least $10 million that year based on Navatek’s proposals.
Navatek’s ambitions peaked in mid-2020. As the company waited to see if Collins would survive her reelection campaign, executives prepared to ask their champion on the appropriations committee for even more funding the following spring, internal documents show.
Other documents from that time show the company was courting senators from seven additional states and gunning for more than $200 million in new appropriations. Navatek expected to have offices in more than a dozen states by the end of the following year, including a new 15,000-square-foot facility in the Portland, Maine, harbor.
Kao, meanwhile, closed on a $4.5 million beachside home in an exclusive Honolulu neighborhood; the backyard pool had a waterfall feature. He renamed the company Martin Defense Group after himself, joking that it would simplify his future takeover of Lockheed Martin.
“It was working well, and it would have continued to work well,” said Schiff, the former executive. “Martin got greedy. Just got damn greedy.”
Downfall, Cover-up
In early 2020, the Campaign Legal Center, a nonprofit good government group, noticed something strange in the public filings for the Collins super PAC. The PAC had received a $150,000 donation from a newly created LLC with a typo in its name: the Society of Young Women Scientist and Engineers, with no S at the end of “Scientist.”
This was the $150,000 Kao donated after the Corner Bakery meeting. The money had come from Navatek’s account, not Kao’s, violating a ban on government contractors making donations.
A check for $150,000 to the Collins super PAC 1820 from the Society of Young Women Scientist and Engineers — a shell company that obscured the actual donor.PacMar Technologies LLC, fka Martin Defense Group, LLC v. Kao
The center suspected the society was not a real group but a pass-through to hide the identity of a major political donor. It filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission. It took only a few days for a Hawaii journalist to discover Kao’s wife’s name on the society’s paperwork, linking the shell company to Navatek.
Inside Navatek, Kao shifted into damage control mode. He spoke to Reed and the super PAC’s lawyer, Cleta Mitchell, and began to hatch a cover-up. In an email released in civil litigation, Mitchell suggested the society make charitable donations — preferably in Maine — which would make it seem like a legitimate nonprofit. “I want to be sure that the LLC proceeds with the ideas we discussed — giving scholarships and recognition to women in engineering, etc.,” wrote Mitchell. “That would help both of us, I think.”
Mitchell added, “We should develop a plan and timetable, so there are some scholarships given over the next several months, and particularly, perhaps in Maine, where the bad press was.”
Mitchell, who later played a major role in Trump’s attempts to overturn the results of the 2020 election, did not respond to requests for comment.
Kao and his team settled on donating scholarships to women in STEM. They offered between $5,000 and $25,000 apiece to state universities where they were angling to win government contracts — that way, the cover-up would benefit them politically, too.
But Navatek’s and Kao’s problems were just beginning. Undeterred by scrutiny from the FEC, Kao defrauded the COVID-era Paycheck Protection Program newly passed by Congress. He inflated Navatek’s payroll to amass loans of $13 million, according to a federal indictment. The Navatek founder, Loui, had long since soured on his chosen successor. This was the final straw. He reported Kao to federal authorities.
“This is not how Navatek behaved or conducted business before I sold the company to Martin Kao,” Loui wrote to ProPublica. He said Navatek was successful before Kao’s ownership and had many sources of government funding. After Kao’s arrest, he added, the company fully cooperated with law enforcement.
Loui has since regained control of the company and renamed it PacMar. He is dedicated to restoring its reputation and ability to execute government contracts, he continued. Loui said he fired employees hired during Kao’s tenure who were “not capable of performing quality, professional engineering and science tasks.”
“The company received no Collins-supported funding after Martin Kao’s arrest, nor should it,” Loui added. “What Martin Kao and his cabal did was wrong.”
On Sept. 30, 2020, law enforcement raided Navatek’s Honolulu offices and arrested Kao for fraud. Federal agents in windbreakers seized his laptop and ordered the company’s IT staff to copy the company’s internal servers.
Navatek’s public flameout attracted the attention of Michelle Ball and Kevin Gounaud, two experienced agents in the FBI’s elite anti-corruption unit. Gounaud was a 20-year FBI veteran who had worked on elaborate undercover operations. Ball had made a name for herself taking on politically sensitive cases. In 2018, she led the investigation into Maria Butina, the Russian agent convicted of infiltrating the National Rifle Association in an attempt to influence the Trump campaign.
The agents began digging through thousands of records for details of Navatek’s lobbying operation, donation strategy and ties to politicians.
They zeroed in on Kao’s relationship with Collins. In a 60-slide presentation agents prepared for prosecutors, they highlighted contributions that Kao and his wife made to the senator in 2018, right before Collins placed the $8 million in research funding into the federal budget. Kao had also given Navatek money to various relatives to donate to Collins in 2019, sending her around $33,000 through these illegal straw donors, the indictment said. Kao’s wife and father did not reply to requests for comment.
Collins christens a Navatek-designed boat at a University of Maine engineering lab in October 2019.U.S. Sen. Susan Collins via Facebook
The government charged Kao in two separate cases: one for defrauding the loan program and another for his campaign finance crimes. His love of talking like a wheeler-dealer — including over email — was a gift to investigators. In one email, he all but admitted the scholarships to young women were a diversion. “Whatever… just a pack of bitches getting free $,” he wrote.
In the face of overwhelming evidence, Kao pleaded guilty in both cases in the fall of 2022. Navatek by then was under court-ordered new management. Awaiting sentencing, Kao worked as a line cook at a Cheesecake Factory.
He began meeting with the same FBI agents and prosecutors who brought him down. For the agents, he was a rare witness: a contractor with deep ties to elected officials saying he would speak candidly about how Washington works.
Kao faced nearly a decade in prison. “My world and life imploded,” he would later recall in a letter to the Hawaii U.S. District Court. “I was fooled and foolish enough to believe that the power elected officials wielded, and [were] actively willing to sell to anyone wealthy enough to pay, was….‘smart business.’”
Over the next two years, Kao sat with agents for at least three dayslong interviews. He told them that politicians, Collins in particular, had been willing participants in his scheme. “It takes two to tangle,” he told them.
Taxpayers funded Navatek’s entire political operation, Kao said. “Most companies of our size do not have the resources to endlessly hire expensive lobbyists and make political donations,” he told the FBI. Navatek solved this by using money from government contracts to hire lobbyists and make campaign contributions, according to interviews, court testimony and internal company records. Diverting money from contracts for lobbying and political donations can be illegal.
For their final meeting, in September 2024, Kao handed the FBI the 50-page document detailing Navatek’s dealings with more than a dozen members of Congress and their staff. It was not only a confession but a road map, with the email addresses and phone numbers of people Kao thought agents ought to subpoena.
Last year, Kao was sentenced to 87 months in prison. The judge in his case offered no leniency based on his cooperation with the FBI. Loui is battling Kao in court to recover the millions he contends Kao stole from the company.
Both Scott Reed and Amy Abbott remain in Collins’ inner circle. Abbott is the finance director for her 2026 reelection effort, and Reed again chairs the main Collins super PAC. Abbott, who is married to Collins’ campaign manager, referred questions to the senator’s communications staff. Clark told ProPublica that Abbott and other campaign staff were interviewed by the FBI and that the campaign was never a target of the investigation.
Earlier this year, Kao agreed to meet a ProPublica reporter at the Federal Prison Camp in Yankton, South Dakota, where he is incarcerated. But on two occasions when guards summoned Kao over the intercom, he refused to enter the visitation room. Over email, he said he was no longer willing to meet, citing the ongoing litigation. He declined through his lawyer to respond to detailed questions.
By late 2024, Ball and Gounaud, the FBI agents, had come to believe there was enough evidence to warrant a broader investigation into bribery of members of Congress, according to a memo seen by ProPublica.
Before they could embark on their new mission, however, they became casualties of Trump’s retribution campaign.
Ball and Gounaud worked for the FBI’s elite anti-corruption unit known as CR-15, which specialized in investigating misconduct by elected officials. When Trump retook power, his new FBI director, Kash Patel, purged the unit agent by agent.
Ball was targeted for her work on the special counsel investigation of Trump’s failed bid to overturn the 2020 election. She was fired in October 2025 in a one-page letter stating she had “weaponized” the Justice Department. She is challenging her firing in a lawsuit. Gounaud was pushed out in early 2026. Both agents declined to comment through their attorney.
Trump also targeted the Justice Department attorneys who worked with CR-15. The team, known as the Public Integrity Section, collapsed spectacularly in February 2025 after staff were ordered to drop a case against New York City Mayor Eric Adams, a Trump ally. The unit’s leadership quit en masse. Trump appointees ordered the remaining prosecutors to halt new corruption cases, just months after Kao made his detailed confession.
Before Ball was fired, however, she managed to take a key step forward.
Based on all the evidence, she persuaded her supervisors to approve a new investigation. It centered on South Carolina, one of the states Navatek eyed for a rapid expansion. The FBI had questions about a steak dinner Kao shared with Sen. Lindsey Graham.
China neutralizes yuan tensions ahead of Trump-Xi talks
TOKYO – If US President Donald Trump plans to make a big issue of the yuan on Thursday, Xi Jinping’s team just complicated things for the White House.
The yuan started the week at its strongest level since July 2022. The People’s Bank of China is guiding the currency of the second-biggest economy higher in the days ahead of Trump’s high-stakes faceoff with President Xi.
It followed PBOC Governor Pan Gongsheng’s move to ratchet up the daily currency fixing for an eighth straight day, the streak unseen since 2023.
The timing is no coincidence. It essentially takes exchange rates off the Trump-Xi discussion table. That alone would ratchet down tensions as the two leaders sit down to discuss trade, tariffs and other impediments to global commerce.
And, perhaps, remind Trump and Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent that their real exchange-rate quarrel in 2026 is with Tokyo, not Beijing.
There’s ample room to criticize China’s policy mix. Its massive state subsidies, government-directed credit, forced technology transfers, land concessions, discriminatory regulations that disadvantage foreign firms and other non-tariff barriers warp global competition in sectors like batteries, chemicals, electric vehicles, green tech, manufacturing, and solar panels.
But arguably no major economy could make better use of a weaker exchange rate in 2026 than China. Though its deflation challenge has receded from global attention, “Japanification” risks abound. In the 1990s, bad loans in the banking system caused Japan Inc. to seize up. For China, it’s a cavitating property sector, where roughly 70% of household wealth is tied up.
“China’s property downturn has weakened household borrowing, construction and local government revenues, while industrial production and exports remain comparatively strong,” explains economist Daniel Muggleton, publisher of the Geopolitics Explained newsletter.
“The result is an economy where significant productive capacity exists in areas such as electric vehicles, batteries, artificial intelligence and other technologies, but domestic demand is not always sufficient to absorb it,” Muggleton says. “This creates the risk that continued investment produces overcapacity rather than the stronger growth China needs.”
As Xi’s men work on a broad restructuring plan to revitalize the economy, a weaker exchange rate could buy them some time. Yet Team Xi is going the other way, with Pan’s PBOC being extremely cautious about interest rate cuts.
One reason Pan isn’t cutting rates faster: a desire to preserve the progress Beijing has made in deleveraging the financial system in recent years. The PBOC worries cutting rates might incentivize bad lending and borrowing decisions all over again.
A weaker yuan also might trigger fresh defaults among property developers as they find it harder to make payments on offshore debt. Already, global investors are keeping close tabs on liquidity problems at China Vanke and others.
Putting yuan internationalization in jeopardy is another concern. For nearly a decade, Xi’s government has worked to increase the yuan’s use in trade and finance. Beijing stepped up cooperation with the BRICS — Brazil, Russia, India, China, South Africa — and Global South nations to pivot away from the dollar-centric world order.
Reverting back to the easy money policies and excesses of the past might alarm international funds. It also might hurt the yuan’s chances of securing reserve-currency status.
A weaker yuan might lead Japan, South Korea, and other top Asian economies to think they have political cover to meddle with exchange rates. That might precipitate a chaotic race to the bottom in markets. That would not go unnoticed by the Trump White House, which threatens the biggest trade war in world history.
The Trump factor is another wildcard. The last thing Xi’s Communist Party wants is to give Trump another reason to slap additional tariffs on Asia’s biggest economy. So Team Xi is going into Thursday’s summit making it very clear there’s little reason to discuss the yuan exchange rate.
Not that the issue can be ignored. Count economist Brad Setser at the Council on Foreign Relations is among those who view the yuan as being 30% undervalued.
As Setser points out, the International Monetary Fund recently revised its estimate of the yuan’s undervaluation up to 21%, based on a GDP current account surplus of 3.7 to 3.8%. “But that surplus is under-reported, and should be around 5%, implying a 30% undervaluation,” he says.
The yuan’s stability, despite deflationary dynamics, should equalize the exchange rate topic in Washington this week. Thursday’s summit is more about preserving the trade-war ceasefire than strategic wins.
The Trump-Xi summit is meant to “stabilize a fragile trade detente, rather than deliver a grand reset,” says analyst Miriam Schive at theWorld Economic Forum. “It comes, once again, amidst a turbulent geopolitical, technological and economic global situation.”
Since the leaders’ last meeting in Beijing in May, Schive says, China’s exports have surged, the artificial intelligence race has intensified and conflict in the Middle East has escalated further.
With the leaders’ 2025 Busan truce due to expire in November, both sides are under pressure to extend the pause on major tariff escalation and rare‑earth export controls while signaling progress on trade, AI and critical minerals.
Edgard Kagan, an economist at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, notes that “in many ways, the visit is the message” of this summit. Kagan adds that “neither of them has an interest in — at least at this point — an escalation on trade issues.”
The overriding issue, notes analyst Veasna Kong at Moody’s, is that “the bilateral relationship, strained by trade tensions and more, is nearing an important milestone—the 10 November expiry date for a trade truce reached in 2025.” A likely move to extend it would be a relief and, perhaps, a win for global markets.
Yet Bessent’s Treasury Department seems far more preoccupied with Japan right now. It’s something of a reversion to the mean. After all, 40 years ago, the weak yen preoccupied Tokyo. So much so that President Ronald Reagan’s White House orchestrated the “Plaza Accord” to strengthen the yen.
Today, talk of a “Mar-a-Lago Accord” concerns China. Yet Bessent is far more focused on the yen as the currency trades near 1985 lows. This is partly because Japan is the biggest foreign holder of US Treasuries, with US$1.1 trillion.
Bessent clearly fears how news of Japan dumping large blocks of US Treasuries would play out in world markets. In late July, when the US Treasury began its joint intervention efforts with Tokyo to stabilize the yen, Bessent’s team funded it by selling euros, not dollars.
Back in the Plaza Accord days, when Trump was a New York real estate mogul, the future US president rarely missed a chance to rail against Japan. Trumponomics, it follows, is ripped straight from the headlines of 1985.
The tariffs, the aggressive deregulation, the trickle-down-economics tax policies, and Trump’s obsession with a new “Plaza Accord” to produce a more advantageous exchange rate all point to a worldview that’s stuck in the mid-1980s.
A quick YouTube search will turn up myriad clips of 1980s-era Trump accusing Japan of having “systematically sucked the blood out of America – sucked the blood out! They have gotten away with murder. They have ended up winning the war.”
Around that time, Hollywood was churning out Japan-bashing blockbusters. One such production was “Gung Ho,” a comedy starring Michael Keaton. It depicted a culture clash between Japan Inc. salarymen and Detroit auto workers.
Bessent, of course, can’t be happy that global markets are calling his bluff. Over the last month, traders defied Bessent’s calls for lower oil prices and bond yields and a higher yen. Three weeks ago, the 10-year Japanese government bond (JGB) yield hit a 30-year high of 3%. Today, it’s just 2.95%, indicating that traders are handing Bessent his hat.
Of course, Xi has every reason to worry about Trump’s plans for the US dollar. During Trump’s first presidency from 2017 to 2021, China was the biggest holder of US Treasuries. Today, it’s No. 2 and, increasingly, a distant one. In July, China’s US debt holdings hit an 18-year low of $618 billion.
Beijing has many reasons to worry about its dollar stockpile. From Trump’s attacks on the Federal Reserve’s independence to his unhinged tariff policy to his geopolitical adventurism to this White House’s general erraticness, both Beijing and Tokyo have valid reasons to worry. Add in Trump’s well-understood desire for a weaker dollar.
All this has Xi’s Communist Party smelling an opportunity. For a decade now, Team Xi has worked to create a globally trusted yuan that rivals the dollar in global trade, finance and as a reserve currency. The Trump era is widening the road for Xi’s yuan ambitions in real time.
This won’t be clear from the summit agenda in Washington this week. But global markets are already looking ahead to next week and the week after that – when China quietly returns to confounding the yuan naysayers, one fixing at a time.
Ernie Accorsi, the longtime NFL executive who helped build the New York Giants team that stunned the undefeated New England Patriots in one of the most famous Super Bowls ever played, has died at 84.
The Giants announced that Accorsi died peacefully Saturday while surrounded by his family. A cause of death was not disclosed.
Accorsi served as the Giants’ general manager from 1998 through 2006, but some of the biggest results of his work came after he stepped away.
The Giants won Super Bowl XLII following the 2007 season, shocking Tom Brady and the previously unbeaten Patriots, then defeated New England again four years later in Super Bowl XLVI.
Many of the players and coaches behind those championship runs were brought to New York during Accorsi’s tenure.
“Ernie helped shape the course of New York Giants history through his vision, leadership and unwavering belief in building a championship organization,” Giants president John Mara said in the team’s tribute.
Perhaps no move defined Accorsi’s career more than his aggressive pursuit of Eli Manning in the 2004 NFL Draft.
The San Diego Chargers selected Manning with the No. 1 overall pick, while the Giants took quarterback Philip Rivers fourth. Accorsi then completed a blockbuster deal that sent Rivers and several draft picks to San Diego in exchange for Manning.
Manning went on to become the quarterback of both Giants Super Bowl championship teams and was named MVP of Super Bowls XLII and XLVI.
Former Giants coach Tom Coughlin said Accorsi deserves lasting credit for making the gamble.
“He’s the guy that made the trade for Eli Manning,” Coughlin said. “That will go down in Giants history as one of the great moves of all time.”
Takaichi scrambles to reach Trump before he sees Xi
Japan’s Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi is heading into an unusually consequential meeting with Donald Trump. The two are expected to meet in New York on September 22, just two days before Trump is due to meet Chinese President Xi Jinping in Washington.
The timing matters: Tokyo is not merely seeking another reaffirmation of the US-Japan alliance. It is trying to shape the political and economic parameters of the Trump-Xi summit before the two leaders sit down.
The concern in Tokyo is not that Washington and Beijing will negotiate — Japan has little interest in obstructing diplomacy between the world’s two largest economies. The concern is what that diplomacy could produce if transactional logic dominates the summit: a deal in which economic concessions are traded for strategic compromises, leaving allies’ security interests as an afterthought.
That possibility has grown more tangible as Washington and Beijing lay the groundwork for the summit. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng have been discussing trade, tariffs, critical minerals and artificial intelligence, as the two sides weigh how to extend their fragile economic truce. For Tokyo, the central question is not whether Trump and Xi can reach an agreement, but whether Japan can make certain strategic issues too costly to trade away.
The first issue is Taiwan. Recent reporting has heightened concern among U.S. allies that Taiwan could become a bargaining chip in that negotiation. Trump has described arms sales to Taiwan as a potential “negotiating chip,” even as Washington and Beijing explore broader economic compromises.
Japan therefore needs to ensure, before the summit, that Taiwan is treated not as an isolated bilateral matter between Washington and Beijing but as part of the wider security architecture of the Indo-Pacific.
Japan’s first objective
For Tokyo, Taiwan is not simply a matter of solidarity with another democracy. Geography makes it inseparable from Japan’s own strategic environment. A crisis in the Taiwan Strait would jeopardize the security of Japan’s southwestern islands, its sea lanes, energy flows and semiconductor supply chains. Any US-China understanding that altered the military balance around Taiwan could therefore carry consequences far beyond Taiwan itself.
That is why Takaichi’s immediate task is to establish a clear strategic boundary with Trump. Japan needs Washington to understand that a Taiwan arrangement negotiated exclusively through US-China bargaining could fundamentally alter its own security environment.
The objective is not to demand a rigid American commitment to every contingency; it is to prevent ambiguity from becoming an invitation to bargain over the regional status quo.
This is especially important because Japan’s own security posture is changing. Tokyo has been strengthening its defense capabilities, expanding its ability to respond to contingencies, and deepening security cooperation with countries beyond the United States. Japan’s Official Security Assistance program, for instance, has expanded rapidly, with its fiscal 2026 budget rising to 18.1 billion yen from 8.1 billion yen the year before.
The program is explicitly designed to strengthen the security and deterrence capabilities of like-minded countries and to prevent unilateral changes to the status quo by force.
But deterrence alone is not enough. Japan also needs to make the alliance economically indispensable to Washington — which explains the second pillar of Tokyo’s strategy: transforming the US-Japan relationship from a traditional security arrangement into an integrated economic, technological and industrial platform.
Central to this effort is Japan’s $550 billion investment commitment in the United States, a framework covering energy, semiconductors, critical minerals and other strategic industries; specific initiatives already include natural-gas generation and small modular nuclear reactors.
The logic is straightforward: if the alliance generates substantial American investment, industrial capacity and jobs, weakening it for a short-term bargain with Beijing becomes far more costly. This is especially true in sectors where Japan retains technological leverage.
Japanese companies hold key positions in semiconductor materials, specialty chemicals and manufacturing equipment; Tokyo Electron and other firms are deeply embedded in global semiconductor production, while Japanese suppliers provide critical materials that are difficult to substitute quickly.
Maintaining coordination between Washington and Tokyo on export controls therefore serves two purposes: it tightens pressure on China while preventing the U.S. technology-control regime from fragmenting in ways that could hurt Japanese industry.
The same principle applies to critical minerals. China’s willingness to restrict exports of strategic materials has already exposed the vulnerability of Japan and other advanced economies. Reuters reported that Chinese exports of heavy rare earths to Japan were sharply curtailed in June amid a diplomatic dispute, laying bare Japanese industry’s dependence on Chinese supplies.
Japan has responded with stockpiling, recycling and diversification toward alternative suppliers.
Institutional commitments
This is where Japan’s strategy grows more sophisticated than simple alliance reassurance.
Tokyo is trying to institutionalize its commitments before they can be reshaped by a Trump-Xi bargain. Personal diplomacy still matters: Takaichi has cultivated a relationship with Trump partly through the political legacy of Shinzo Abe, whose rapport with Trump helped establish a distinctive model of US-Japan diplomacy. But personal chemistry is inherently unstable, while institutional arrangements are harder to reverse.
Japan therefore has an incentive to embed the alliance in economic frameworks, technology agreements, critical-minerals arrangements, coordinated export controls and investment mechanisms. The goal is a network of commitments in which security and economic interests reinforce each other.
Critical minerals offer a useful example: Japan has been pursuing supply diversification while working with the United States on stockpiling and alternative processing capacity. Such arrangements reduce exposure to Chinese economic coercion while increasing the strategic value of cooperation with Washington.
The same logic extends across the wider Indo-Pacific. Japan is deepening security cooperation with Australia, Southeast Asian states and Pacific nations through OSA and other mechanisms.
In fiscal 2025, Japan supported maritime capabilities in Indonesia, including high-speed patrol boats, and has extended similar assistance to other regional partners. These initiatives are modest individually but strategically significant in aggregate, forming a regional network that makes unilateral changes to the status quo more difficult.
Japan’s broader objective, then, is not to stop Trump from negotiating with Xi, nor to push Washington into an unnecessarily confrontational posture toward Beijing. It is to shape the conditions under which US-China diplomacy unfolds.
That requires a delicate balance: Japan must make clear that Taiwan and the regional security order cannot simply become bargaining chips, without framing its position in a way that accelerates Chinese escalation. It must deepen economic integration with the United States without becoming excessively dependent on American policy preferences.
And it must diversify away from China without destroying the commercial ties that remain vital to the Japanese economy. The timing of Takaichi’s meeting with Trump reflects precisely this balancing act.
Tokyo wants to enter the Trump-Xi summit with several facts already established: that Taiwan is inseparable from Japan’s security; that the US-Japan alliance delivers tangible economic benefits to America; that Japan is becoming more capable of carrying its own strategic weight; and that the technological and supply-chain architecture linking the two countries is too integrated to be casually dismantled.
Japan cannot control what Trump and Xi ultimately discuss. It can, however, try to narrow the space in which a grand bargain could be struck at its expense. That is the real purpose of Takaichi’s pre-summit diplomacy: not to prevent a US-China deal, but to ensure that whatever deal emerges does not redraw East Asia’s strategic map over Japan’s head.
Ronny P Sasmita is senior international affairs analyst at Indonesia Strategic and Economic Action Institution, a Jakarta-based think tank. He holds a PhD in international political economy from the University of Tokyo.