# Trump Envoys Urge Europeans to Hand Frozen Russian Assets to U.S.-Run Fund, but Plan Is Rebuffed *Thursday, October 15, 2026 at 6:12 AM UTC — Hamer Intelligence Services Desk* **Published**: 2026-10-15T06:12:22.407Z (3h ago) **Category**: geopolitics | **Region**: Global **Importance**: 9/10 **Sources**: OSINT **Permalink**: https://hamerintel.com/data/articles/20600.md **Source**: https://hamerintel.com/summaries --- **Deck**: Envoys linked to Donald Trump proposed that European governments unfreeze part of Russia’s sovereign assets and transfer them to a fund under U.S. control to support Ukraine peace talks, according to accounts of recent talks. European officials rejected the idea, which would cover assets that currently total about €260 billion. A dispute over control of Russia’s frozen money is opening a new fault line inside the Western coalition supporting Ukraine. According to accounts of recent talks in Miami, the United States has floated a plan for European governments to unfreeze some Russian sovereign assets and move them into a fund overseen by a U.S. entity. The proposal was presented by businessman Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner, son‑in‑law of Donald Trump, and was described as a way to help revive peace talks on Ukraine. European representatives at the meeting pushed back. They refused to surrender control of the frozen assets or agree to any transfer that could be seen as returning funds to Moscow. The proposal was rejected, those accounts say. Around €260 billion in Russian central bank and sovereign assets remain immobilised in Western jurisdictions, most of them in Europe. Those holdings are a central source of leverage over the Kremlin and are also viewed as a potential pool of money to help cover Ukraine’s wartime needs and eventual reconstruction. Under the idea advanced in Miami, some of that money would be unblocked and placed in a fund under Washington’s control to support negotiations and peace arrangements. That directly touches sensitive legal questions in Europe about property rights, state immunity and the credibility of European financial centres as custodians of foreign reserves. The political context also matters. The discussions involved figures tied to Trump’s camp rather than just serving U.S. officials, pointing to an attempt to shape Ukraine diplomacy ahead of U.S. elections and a possible Trump return to the White House. European governments, which would live with the consequences of any Ukraine settlement on their own borders, signalled they aren’t prepared to hand Washington unilateral control over such a significant economic instrument. For Kyiv, the debate cuts both ways. Russian assets held abroad are one of the few clearly identifiable sources of major funding for Ukraine during and after the war. At the same time, if control over that money shifts to a single foreign government, Ukraine could find itself under pressure in talks it doesn’t fully direct. The clash in Miami also highlights a broader split over how to use the frozen funds. Some U.S. voices want to treat the assets as a direct bargaining chip with Moscow, arguing that dangling partial access could draw Russia into talks. Many European officials appear more inclined to treat the money, or income generated by it, as a long‑term guarantee for Ukraine rather than an inducement to the Kremlin. Who controls Russia’s frozen reserves now shapes more than just future diplomacy with Moscow. It influences the behaviour of other states watching how Western powers handle sovereign assets in a crisis. Signals to watch next include whether the U.S. side turns the Miami proposal into a more formal legal plan, how the EU advances its own approach to using profits from the assets for Ukraine, and whether Russia starts to publicly tie any future negotiations to changes in the status of its frozen funds.