In the international relations structures in Southeast Asia, “strategic trust” acts as a glue between countries that are diverse in terms of institutions, histories, and national interests. Strategic trust can be understood as the extent to which one country believes that another country will not harm its core interests, even in the absence of strong enforcement mechanisms. This is not blind trust but calculated trust, based on consistent behavior, policy transparency, and commitment to complying with common rules of the game. In Southeast Asia, strategic trust is not only the foundation for bilateral cooperation but also a prerequisite for building the ASEAN Political-Security Community (APSC) according to the roadmap by 2025.
The relationship between Thailand and Cambodia is a case in point, reflecting the complex and fragile nature of strategic trust in the region. There have been periods of serious border conflicts, such as the dispute over the Preah Vihear temple area in 2008–2011, and the two countries have repeatedly been embroiled in military tensions. Although bilateral relations have stabilized under Hun Sen and subsequent civilian governments in Bangkok, underlying factors such as anti-Cambodian sentiment in the Thai military and a lack of transparency in the handling of migrant workers and border issues persist. In this context, the ASEAN institution, with its principles of non-interference and consensus, has shown its limits even more clearly. When tensions flare up, ASEAN often lacks effective tools for coordination and mediation, leading to a situation of “every man for himself” and dependence on personal relationships between leaders.
The leak of an audio recording between Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen in June 2025 is a typical example of the failure of strategic trust in a loose institutional framework like ASEAN.
What is remarkable about the incident is not only the content of the call but also the nature of the diplomatic form used. The 17-minute exchange was conducted outside official channels and was marked by an excessively intimate tone: Ms. Paetongtarn called Mr. Hun Sen “uncle” and agreed with him to ignore criticism from a Thai military general. This reflects the deeply personal political model in both countries. In Thailand, “Thaksinism” is not just a political phenomenon but also a family-based power structure, where the Shinawatra clan still holds great influence in politics, despite opposition from the military and royalists. In Cambodia, “Hun Senism” is a symbol of decades of personal rule, where Mr. Hun Sen and his family control almost all state power, passing the throne to his son without any real democratic competition.
The leaked audio recordings reveal a number of statements that have crossed the line on the military and security. Notably, the Thai military’s disdain for Ms. Paetongtarn’s response to her claim that the generals were just “showing off” is a provocative and insulting statement to the military, which has staged coups to overthrow governments led by her family. In addition, the fact that the prime minister of one country made such a clear statement in favor of another country’s leader on a potentially disputed border issue has touched the limits of domestic and international strategic trust. Not surprisingly, shortly afterwards, the Bhumjaithai Party—the second largest partner in the ruling coalition—announced its withdrawal from the government, citing the serious damage to the honor of the nation and the military.
Hun Sen’s role in releasing the recording has further complicated the situation. While Cambodia has said that Hun Sen simply wanted to “clarify the truth” after the first nine minutes of the recording were leaked earlier, observers have said that the release of the entire transcript was politically calculated. On the one hand, it helped Hun Sen demonstrate his status as a “great friend” of Thailand while sending a message to the Thai military that they should not underestimate his influence. On the other hand, he also unintentionally—or intentionally—put the Thai Prime Minister in a difficult position when Ms. Paetongtarn was forced to apologize publicly, undermining her reputation and legitimacy at home.
The impact of the leaked audio recording between Thai Prime Minister Paetongtarn Shinawatra and Cambodian Senate President Hun Sen goes beyond the bilateral level, spreading like a domino effect to many levels of national political structures, international relations, and institutional functioning of ASEAN. At each level, this incident highlights the fragility of strategic trust while exposing the gaps in the ability to control and institutionalize individual power in Southeast Asia.
For Thailand, the political consequences are profound and potentially long-lasting. Internally, Paetongtarn’s government—newly formed with the support of the Shinawatra family—is on the brink of collapse after the Bhumjaithai Party, the second-largest partner in the ruling coalition, announced its withdrawal. This move not only created a parliamentary majority crisis but also cost Paetongtarn her already fragile political legitimacy and credibility as the “political heir” to her father, Thaksin Shinawatra. Polls after the event showed that the government’s approval rating plummeted, while support for the military’s role as a guarantor of national stability increased significantly.
The Thai military—which has traditionally been deeply involved in politics—now has a new justification for acting in the name of “protecting national honor and the face of the military.” The coups of 2006 and 2014 were both carried out in the name of maintaining stability and countering the influence of the Shinawatra family. This time, a civilian leader directly insulting the generals and showing subservience to foreign leaders could be interpreted as a threat to national security. In this context, the possibility of the military intervening, directly or indirectly, is a very real risk. This raises questions about the future of Thailand’s young democratic system, which has been repeatedly disrupted by military coups.
For Cambodia, this event can be seen by Hun Sen as a tactical victory in domestic affairs. The release of the entire recording demonstrates his proactive control of information and public opinion and helps him affirm his role as a powerful regional figure, despite having stepped down from the position of prime minister. In the eyes of the Cambodian public, Hun Sen is praised as someone who maintains his influence in foreign affairs and takes the initiative against a larger country like Thailand. However, on the international level, the release of a private recording between two heads of state may raise doubts about Phnom Penh’s diplomatic credibility. The deliberate release of confidential information will make other partners—both within and outside ASEAN—more cautious in all forms of high-level contact with Cambodian leaders. This, in the long term, may cause Cambodia to be partially isolated in strategic diplomatic channels or at least lose its image as a responsible partner in the region.
In terms of bilateral relations, Hun Sen’s release of the full transcript of the call also puts Thailand in a vulnerable position, forcing the Paetongtarn government to publicly apologize. This is an extremely dangerous diplomatic precedent, especially in the context of the two countries still having unresolved historical disputes. Without a clear and in-depth trust-building strategy from both sides, Thai-Cambodian relations risk taking a major step backward. Any efforts to build trust through defense, border security, and labor cooperation channels could be frozen or shifted to a state of precaution.
Regionally, the impact of this event is systemic for ASEAN. First of all, the incident has seriously undermined strategic trust within the bloc. ASEAN countries, which are already very cautious about sharing information and coordinating security, will now be even more cautious in high-level communications if they are concerned that the content may be leaked or exploited for internal political purposes. The fact that a high-level leader was recorded and then released in full without any official response from ASEAN shows the inability of this organization to handle internal crises. ASEAN does not have any mechanism to investigate, intervene, or mediate in bilateral diplomatic crises, especially when they do not take the form of traditional armed conflicts.
In addition, this incident also sets a dangerous precedent for the entire regional diplomatic culture: when personal relationships can be recorded, edited, disseminated, and exploited for political purposes. This breaks the unwritten norms of ASEAN diplomacy, where friendliness and discretion are considered the foundation. If this trend continues, regional leaders will gradually lose trust in each other, and instead there will be a permanent state of hidden tension. More importantly, strategic rivals outside the region, such as China or the United States, can take advantage of these trust gaps to amplify internal ASEAN conflicts. If any member state feels threatened or betrayed, it can turn to external powers as a strategic counterweight, leading to polarization in regional foreign policy and seriously weakening ASEAN’s neutrality in the Asia-Pacific security architecture.
Recent developments are a wake-up call for Southeast Asia on the need to institutionalize and make transparent strategic diplomatic channels. First, countries need to establish clear standards for high-level contacts between leaders—including confidentiality, recording, and public statements. Calls or personal contacts between leaders should be coordinated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and controlled by an official system to ensure accountability and information security. Second, ASEAN countries need to strengthen the role of professional diplomacy, limiting the use of backroom channels or friendly relationships as tools to resolve crises. In a region where individual leaders can change quickly, betting on personal relationships is a risky strategy.
ASEAN also needs to rethink its operating model. It is necessary to establish an early warning mechanism for intra-bloc diplomatic crises, as well as a code of conduct for senior leaders in bilateral contacts. This is not to control or limit the freedom of leaders but to ensure that individual actions do not undermine the foundation of shared trust. In the long term, a strong ASEAN security community can only be built if member states agree to abandon the mindset of “personal politics” and replace it with institutionalized, accountable, and transparent diplomacy.
In the summer of 2021, Priscilla Presley seemed to be riding high.
The ex-wife of the King of Rock ’n’ Roll had appeared at Graceland during the annual Elvis Week celebration and later hosted a three-day festival at the famous manse extolling the virtues of elegant southern living. Then there were the highly anticipated upcoming biopics: director Baz Luhrmann’s “Elvis” and Sofia Coppola’s “Priscilla” based on her 1985 memoir, for which she served as an executive producer.
Privately, however, it was a difficult time for the actress. Priscilla was mourning the passing of her mother, just a year after her grandson, Benjamin Keough, the only son of her daughter Lisa Marie Presley, had committed suicide at 27. Adding to her personal woes, Elvis’ former bride was in a serious financial hole, as court filings would later claim.
Then she met Brigitte Kruse, a flamboyant, fifth-generation auctioneer and self-styled philanthropist who specialized in high-profile celebrity memorabilia, royal objects, estates and fine jewelry sales. In 2017, Kruse gained a measure of renown when she sold an abandoned private plane known as the “lost jet” once owned by Elvis for $498,000.
After the pair were introduced, they launched a joint venture that would cash in on Priscilla’s famous name, image and likeness through her paid public appearances and other projects.
Within months of their initial meeting, Priscilla began lending her name to some of Kruse’s online Elvis memorabilia auctions with GWS Auctions Inc., based in Agoura Hills.
Priscilla Presley at a 2014 event held at Graceland in Memphis.
(Lance Murphey / Associated Press)
Less than two years later, their partnership was in tatters, with the two women trading bitter allegations in dueling lawsuits.
Priscilla, 80, called Kruse, who was half her age, a “con-artist and pathological liar” who had forced her into a “form of indentured servitude,” leading her into signing away 80% of her income and conning her out of more than $1 million, according to the fraud and elder abuse lawsuit she filed against Kruse and her business associates in Los Angeles last year.
Kruse, who did not respond to requests for comment, has disputed Priscilla Presley’s claims, depicting herself in court filings as her financial savior who faced retaliation after she sued Priscilla for breach of contract a year earlier.
The litigation is the latest in a string of legal battles that Priscilla and the Presley heirs have been involved in since Elvis died nearly 50 years ago, leaving a financial legacy as messy and fraught as the King’s life.
While the storied Presley family has forever been enshrined in celebrity as America’s reigning pop culture icons, Elvis’ estate has long been the spigot of his heirs’ fortunes and misfortunes, spilling out from the gates of Graceland.
As Joel Weinshanker, managing partner of Elvis Presley Enterprises once said about another dispute involving the estate:
“People have been trying to take from Elvis since Elvis was Elvis.”
Inheriting a messy estate
When 14-year-old Priscilla Beaulieu met Elvis Presley in 1959, he was already Elvis. She was the stepdaughter of an U.S. Air Force officer, living in West Germany where the rocker, then 24, was stationed during his military service.
Four years later, Priscilla moved to Memphis and stepped inside the gilded cage of Elvis’ fame. In 1967, the couple married in Las Vegas. With the birth of their daughter Lisa Marie nine months later, a rock ‘n’ roll dynasty was born.
Lisa Marie was born in 1968, nine months after Elvis and Priscilla married in Las Vegas.
(Associated Press)
But life inside of the irresistible mythology of Elvis proved stifling. He was mostly on tour and in a haze of drugs and affairs. At 28, Priscilla divorced the rocker, but not his stardom.
She built an agile career out of the ashes of their romance. Priscilla went on to become an actress with a recurring role in the 1980s CBS hit series “Dallas,” starred in several of the “Naked Gun” movies and appeared in other television shows; she also authored books and launched a fragrance.
But she never strayed far from the buzzy afterlife of Elvis’ orbit.
When Elvis died in 1977, their daughter Lisa Marie was just nine and his father, Vernon Presley, took the reins as executor of his estate. After Vernon died in 1979, Priscilla, a successor trustee, assumed the role of primary manager.
Despite the celebrated influence and global popularity of Elvis, who was estimated to have earned anywhere between $100 million to $1 billion, his estate was in shambles — worth only about $5 million. Graceland’s costly maintenance and massive IRS bills were fast depleting Lisa Marie’s inheritance.
The poor state of affairs was due in part to Elvis’ profligate spending. He was known to lavish Cadillacs and jewelry on friends, many of whom were also on his payroll. But his fortune’s wane was exacerbated by the abusive control that his longtime manager Col. Tom Parker exerted over his business affairs.
Elvis performing in Honolulu in 1973.
(Pål Grandlund)
The cigar-chomping Parker, who died in 1997, was a former carnival barker and a compulsive gambler. He wasn’t, however, a colonel — the Dutch-born “Parker’s” real name was Andreas Cornelis van Kuijk.
During his time as Elvis’ manager, Parker took commissions as high as 50%, and frequently cut deals that enriched himself at the rocker’s expense.
Four years before Elvis died, Parker sold off his back catalog to RCA for $5.4 million (with Parker taking $2.6 million and Elvis $2.8 million), depriving the estate of untold millions in royalties.
In 1981, the co-executors of Elvis’ estate (an attorney separately represented Lisa Marie), sued Parker for massive fraud and mismanagement, claiming he received the “lion’s share” of Elvis’ income, even after his death. The parties eventually reached an out-of-court settlement.
Reviving Graceland
But the years of profound missteps and mismanagement left Elvis’ estate facing the prospect of bankruptcy and worse, having to sell Graceland. Priscilla brought in a team of financial advisors and lawyers who engineered a stunning financial turnaround.
In 1981, the Elvis Presley Trust created Elvis Presley Enterprises Inc. to conduct business and manage the trust’s assets, including Graceland, which was opened to the public the following year. Now a National Historic Landmark, the tourist shrine generates an estimated $10 million annually.
By the time Lisa Marie inherited her father’s estate upon her 25th birthday in 1993, the estate had rebounded. Two decades later, Graceland, along with the merchandising of Elvis’ image and managing his music royalties, was worth upward of $500 million.
Elvis on the grounds of his Graceland estate circa 1957.
(Michael Ochs Archives/Getty Images)
Then, in 2005, Elvis’ estate changed hands. Lisa Marie agreed to sell 85% of EPE’s assets, including her father’s likeness rights, to music entrepreneur Robert F.X. Sillerman and his company CKX Inc. for $114 million.
Under the deal, Lisa Marie retained 15% of the trust and received $50 million in cash as well as $26 million in CKX common and preferred stock. She also retained sole ownership of Graceland and her father’s personal items. Priscilla received $6.5 million for the use of the family name, Fortune reported.
But in 2013, CKX Inc. sold its majority interest in the estate to the intellectual property firm Authenic Brands Group for a reported $145 million.
The problems that had long trailed the estate surfaced again five years later.
This time it was Lisa Marie who alleged she had been duped. Then 50 and in the middle of divorcing her fourth husband Michael Lockwood, the father of her twin girls, she sued her business manager Barry Siegel. She claimed that as a result of his “reckless and negligent mismanagement” the trust had dwindled to just $14,000 and was left with $500,000 in credit card debt.
Lisa Marie Presley in her childhood bedroom at Graceland in 2012.
(Lance Murphey/AP)
Siegel denied the allegations and countersued, claiming that she had “squandered” her fortune as a result of her “excessive spending.” At the time, court filings related to her divorce from Lockwood, revealed that she was $16.7 million in debt.
A mother, daughter feud
When Lisa Marie died suddenly in January 2023 at the age of 54, another tense legal battle erupted over the estate and the trust Lisa Marie had set up.
Within weeks of her death, Priscilla went to court to challenge an amendment that removed her as a trustee, making her granddaughter, the actress Riley Keough, sole trustee. Priscilla’s lawyers argued that the signature was “inconsistent” with Lisa Marie’s handwriting.
The matter was settled five months later. Keough was named sole trustee. In exchange for stepping down, Priscilla received a $1-million lump sum payment paid out of Lisa Marie’s $25-million life insurance policy and was made a special advisor for a trust relating to EPE, for which she would receive $100,000 annually for 10 years or until her death.
Priscilla was also granted permission to be buried in the Meditation Garden at Graceland near Elvis’ gravesite and to be given a memorial service on the property.
‘Dame’ Kruse
By spring 2023, as Priscilla resolved her dispute with her daughter’s estate, Kruse’s presence and influence in her personal and business affairs deepened.
When they met, Priscilla was in her mid-70s and her main source of income derived from her paid personal appearances. Kruse’s suit described Presley’s celebrity as “a mere shadow of what it once was, and her earning potential was only a fraction of what it previously was.”
Moreover, she claimed that Priscilla was 60 days away from financial disaster, and drowning under $700,000 in outstanding tax debts.
Then 39, Kruse was publicly portrayed as a success, active in the worlds of celebrity and philanthropy and who spoke multiple languages. She highlighted her advocacy for children with autism and AIDS research; donating money to related causes and delivering toys to orphans in global conflict zones with her husband, Vahe Sislyan.
On social media and in news releases, Kruse showcased her activities and accolades, posting images alongside various marquee names such as the pop star Gwen Stefani and President Trump and his wife Melania.
In 2016, seven years after Kruse and her husband founded GWS, she was the first female auctioneer to make it into the Guinness Book of World Records (for selling the largest abandoned world property). Kruse formally added the honorific title “Dame” to her name after a member of the royal Italian Medici family conferred the title of Cavaliere, a kind of knighthood, on her.
In media interviews, Kruse liked to say that the sale of Elvis’ “lost jet” had seared her reputation as the rocker’s memorabilia dealer. Over the years she was prolific, selling a number of his items, including the Smith & Wesson that he was said to have purchased in 1973 after he was attacked onstage in Las Vegas.
According to Priscilla, she first met Kruse in June 2021 after the auctioneer texted her saying she’d like to meet for lunch.
They dined at Gucci Osteria in Beverly Hills followed by numerous other get-togethers in Los Angeles. Kruse introduced her to her “business partner,” Kevin Fialko, “an investor, experienced businessman, and financial expert,” who “would help Kruse get my financial affairs in order,” according to a declaration submitted by Priscilla.
Dame Brigitte Kruse and Priscilla Presley at an event in Orlando in 2023.
(Gerardo Mora/Getty Images)
“When I first met Brigitte Kruse, she wanted to involve me in her auction business,” she wrote in her March declaration.
From there, Kruse “quickly immersed herself” in Priscilla’s life, “often sending her multiple text messages a day, and “telling her how much she loved her and admired her,” according to her elder abuse complaint. She also talked up her credentials, lineage and expertise in the auction business as well as her “connections to celebrities.”
In September 2021, Priscilla participated in one of GWS’ online auctions that featured a private lunch with her and Kruse, with a portion of the proceeds going to a charity. A number of Elvis items were also auctioned off, such as the white eyelet jumpsuit cape he wore during his 1972 performances at Madison Square Garden and a jar of his hair.
“She’s just such a wealth of experience and knowledge. You don’t study and learn about Elvis without learning about Priscilla as well. Their names are synonymous,” Kruse told People.
The following year, Kruse’s GWS conducted an online auction billed as “The Lost Jewelry Collection of Elvis Presley and Colonel Tom Parker,” including watches, rings and cuff links that Elvis had bought or commissioned for his manager.
Although she didn’t own any of the items, Priscilla provided “letters of recollection” vouching for her personal historical memories of many of them, according to the auction’s online catalog notes.
“There is so much product out there that is not authentic at all and that worries me,” she said in a video with Reuters after viewing the collection. “I want to know for sure that that is going to go to someone who is going to care for it, love it.”
By January 2023, Priscilla and Kruse agreed to set up several companies to exploit Priscilla’s name and image and to bolster Kruse’s Elvis memorabilia auctions through Priscilla’s written “recollections.”
The terms of their agreement gave Kruse 51% and Presley 49% of Priscilla Presley Partners LLC, according to court filings.
Soon after, however, Priscilla alleged Kruse and Fialko “expanded the scope of their interest in my affairs, seeking to inject themselves into every area of my life.”
They gained her trust and isolated her from key advisors, setting the stage for “a meticulously planned and abhorrent scheme,” intended “to drain her of every last penny she had,” Presley alleged in her lawsuit.
Presley says that she was “fraudulently induced” to sign documents without the opportunity to review them in advance or “advised as to the nature of the paperwork.”
The contracts gave Kruse a controlling interest in her name, image and likeness in perpetuity. They also granted her power of attorney over Priscilla’s affairs and healthcare and named Kruse a trustee on her personal and family trusts, according to Priscilla’s declaration.
Along with Fialko, Kruse closed Priscilla’s bank accounts and opened new ones “in an effort to transfer the funds of Presley’s various personal, business and trust accounts.”
Priscilla claims she also signed a five-year lease on a house in Orlando, Fla., owned by Sislyan, that she never asked for or wanted.
Further, Priscilla alleges in a declaration that Kruse and Fialko leaned on Coppola to get a credit on the biopic and diverted $120,000 of money Presley earned from the film into their own accounts.
When Lisa Marie died, Priscilla contended that Kruse and Fialko improperly inserted themselves into her legal dispute over her daughter’s trust, she said in her complaint. They also had the “audacity” to demand that they were allowed “ to attend any memorial service for Presley in the future,” she added.
By August 2023, Priscilla severed ties with Kruse.
A lawyer representing Kruse and Fialko did not respond to a request for comment.
A few months later, Kruse, through Priscilla Presley Partners, sued for breach of contract, saying Priscilla asked Kruse to take over her business affairs, requiring her to “devote her attention full-time to managing Priscilla’s life” in order to “monetize various aspects of her [Presley’s] life.”
Kruse and Fialko maintained they worked tirelessly to keep Priscilla from “financial ruin and public embarrassment,” and that she fully understood the agreements she was signing.
Meanwhile, others began to question the authenticity around some of GWS’s Elvis sales.
When GWS held another online auction of Elvis memorabilia in January 2023 that included a one-of-a-kind grommet jacket that Elvis wore in 1972, it drew the attention of Elvis Presley Enterprises.
“We know there was only one made, and guess what? We have it in our archives,” Weinshanker, EPE’s managing partner, told NBC News, last July.
GWS said the claims were unsubstantiated: “GWS stands behind everything that it sells, and categorically denies tracking in fake or inauthentic items attributed to Elvis Presley, or otherwise.”
The tensions escalated last November, after GWS announced another “lost” collection auction of Elvis and Col. Parker memorabilia, comprising 400 items.
Priscilla Presley, her daughter Lisa Marie and grandaughters: Riley Keough, Harper Lockwood and Finley Lockwood at an event honoring the Presley family at the TCL Chinese Theatre in Los Angeles in 2022.
(Jordan Strauss/Invision/AP)
The cache of documents included telegrams Elvis and Parker sent to Frank Sinatra, the Beatles and others, handwritten notes and Elvis’ signed 1956 contract with the New Frontier Hotel in Las Vegas, included in the auction, that rang alarm bells.
The estate’s lawyers in December sent a cease and desist letter to GWS, claiming the listed auction items were the property of Graceland and demanded their immediate return. Nonetheless, GWS went forward with the sale, contending in a letter it had acted appropriately. , On Dec. 24, the estate sued GWS, Kruse and two others, claiming the items belonged to Graceland and were “improperly and illegally offered for sale at auction.” They sought to recover at least 74 “irreplaceable documents,” and alleged that the defendants were in “possession of perhaps thousands more such items.”
According to the suit, the allegedly “stolen” items were part of an enormous trove that the estate acquired from Parker in 1990 for $1.25 million. GWS has denied that it had engaged in “any wrongdoing whatsoever.”
Elvis’ estate alleges that a former Parker employee named Greg McDonald “took possession” of the documents that should have been turned over to Graceland after Parker died.
Instead, when McDonald died in 2024, his widow Sherry and son Thomas McDonald, who are named as defendants, “took possession of the Property and then delivered it to Brigitte Kruse for sale at GWS,” the lawsuit states.
The suit further asserted that Kruse was aware of the circumstances in which Greg McDonald obtained the items before putting them up for sale. In an email thread between Kruse and Graceland’s longtime archivist in 2021, included in the filings, Kruse wrote that she had a video of her in conversation with McDonald in which he “admits to knowing of the theft,” in regards to the documents.
Over 600,000 visitors go to Graceland each year, earning the estate an estimated $10 million annually.
(Raymond Boyd/Getty Images)
An attorney for Kruse disputed the claim, saying in a statement that when she had informed the Elvis estate of the existence of McDonald’s collection in 2021, “they did not make a claim to Mr. McDonald alleging that the collection was not rightfully his.”
GWS “never maintained care, custody or control of any of the items” that were auctioned,” the statement read. “We will continue to respect the judicial process and the outcome of the ongoing litigation.”
In a statement to The Times on behalf of himself and his mother, Thomas McDonald said: “The property in which Graceland and Elvis Presley Enterprises are asserting ownership has been in my family’s possession for over forty years as gifts from the Colonel. I am committed to resolving this dispute and vindicating my family’s rights as expediently and fairly as possible.”
Lawyers for EPE and Graceland Holdings did not respond to a request for comment.
As the various lawsuits were unfolding, last April, GWS Auctions was suspended by the Franchise Tax board in California, effectively losing its standing to operate legally due to noncompliance with tax requirements.
In court filings, Kruse and her co-defendants are cited as saying that GWS is “defunct.” However, GWS’ website remains active and currently lists the results of its most recent auction: the Artifacts of Hollywood and Music sale held on June 7 (that included the racing helmet Elvis wore in “Viva Las Vegas,” that sold for $6,500).
Last month, Elvis’ former wife scored a legal win when a Los Angeles Superior Court judge denied a motion by Kruse and her business associates to temporarily put a hold on the elder abuse lawsuit in an effort to move the litigation to Florida.
In his ruling, Judge Mark H. Epstein expressed frustration with the defendants’ “never-ending series of motions,” underscoring that this was not a a contract-based case. Presley “is suing these defendants for fraud and elder abuse, an aspect of which was allegedly bamboozling her into signing those agreements in the first place.”
The ongoing clash with Kruse has left Priscilla “devastated,” said her attorney, Wayne Harman. “We look forward to the court holding defendants fully accountable for their actions,” he said in a statement.
Amid the fallout with Kruse, the estate faced another controversy.
A mysterious company, Naussany Investments & Private Lending, presented documents claiming that Lisa Marie had borrowed $3.8 million and put up Graceland as collateral but had failed to repay the loan before she died.
But it was an elaborate scam, according to federal authorities, who in August arrested a Missouri woman, Lisa Jeanine Findley, alleging she used fake documents to “steal the family’s ownership interest in Graceland” and attemped to put it up for sale.
In February, Findley pleaded guilty to mail fraud for her role in the scheme and is scheduled to be sentenced this week. She faces a maximum penalty of 20 years in prison.
TULSA, Okla. — Tulsa’s new mayor on Sunday proposed a $100 million private trust as part of a reparations plan to give descendants of the 1921 Tulsa Race Massacre scholarships and housing help in a city-backed bid to make amends for one of the worst racial attacks in U.S. history.
The plan by Mayor Monroe Nichols, the first Black mayor of Oklahoma’s second-largest city, would not provide direct cash payments to descendants or the last two centenarian survivors of the attack that killed as many as 300 Black people. He made the announcement at the Greenwood Cultural Center, located in the once-thriving district of North Tulsa that was destroyed by a white mob.
Nichols said he does not use the term reparations, which he calls politically charged, characterizing his sweeping plan instead as a “road to repair.”
“For 104 years, the Tulsa Race Massacre has been a stain on our city’s history,” Nichols said Sunday after receiving a standing ovation from several hundred people. “The massacre was hidden from history books, only to be followed by the intentional acts of redlining, a highway built to choke off economic vitality and the perpetual underinvestment of local, state and federal governments.
“Now it’s time to take the next big steps to restore.”
Nichols said the proposal wouldn’t require city council approval, although the council would need to authorize the transfer of any city property to the trust, something he said was highly likely.
The private charitable trust would be created with a goal to secure $105 million in assets, with most of the funding either secured or committed by June 1, 2026. Although details would be developed over the next year by an executive director and a board of managers, the plan calls for the bulk of the funding, $60 million, to go toward improving buildings and revitalizing the city’s north side.
“The Greenwood District at its height was a center of commerce,” Nichols said in a telephone interview. “So what was lost was not just something from North Tulsa or the Black community. It actually robbed Tulsa of an economic future that would have rivaled anywhere else in the world.”
Nichols’ proposal follows an executive order he signed earlier this year recognizing June 1 as Tulsa Race Massacre Observance Day, an official city holiday. Events Sunday in the Greenwood District included a picnic for families, worship services and an evening candlelight vigil.
Nichols also realizes the current national political climate, particularly President Trump’s sweeping assault on diversity, equity and inclusion programs, poses challenging political crosswinds.
“The fact that this lines up with a broader national conversation is a tough environment,” Nichols admitted, “but it doesn’t change the work we have to do.”
Jacqueline Weary, is a granddaughter of massacre survivor John R. Emerson, Sr., who owned a hotel and cab company in Greenwood that were destroyed. She acknowledged the political difficulty of giving cash payments to descendants. But at the same time, she wondered how much of her family’s wealth was lost in the violence.
“If Greenwood was still there, my grandfather would still have his hotel,” said Weary, 65. “It rightfully was our inheritance, and it was literally taken away.”
Tulsa is not the first U.S. city to explore reparations. The Chicago suburb of Evanston, Illinois, was the first U.S. city to make reparations available to its Black residents for past discrimination, offering qualifying households $25,000 for home repairs, down payments on property, and interest or late penalties on property in the city. The funding for the program came from taxes on the sale of recreational marijuana.
Other communities and organizations that have considered providing reparations range from the state of California to cities including Amherst, Massachusetts; Providence, Rhode Island; Asheville, North Carolina; and Iowa City, Iowa; religious denominations like the Episcopal Church; and prominent colleges like Georgetown University in Washington.
In Tulsa, there are only two living survivors of the Race Massacre, both of whom are 110 years old: Leslie Benningfield Randle and Viola Fletcher. The women, both of whom were in attendance on Sunday, received direct financial compensation from both a Tulsa-based nonprofit and a New York-based philanthropic organization, but have not received any recompense from the city or state.
Damario Solomon-Simmons, an attorney for the survivors and the founder of the Justice for Greenwood Foundation, said earlier this year that any reparations plan should include direct payments to Randle and Fletcher and a victims’ compensation fund for outstanding claims.
A lawsuit filed by Solomon-Simmons on behalf of the survivors was rejected by the Oklahoma Supreme Court last year, dampening racial justice advocates’ hopes that the city would ever make financial amends.
The Trump brand has been used to hawk cryptocurrencies, Bibles, steaks and guitars. Now the US president’s media company is laying the groundwork to sell investment funds.
Trump Media & Technology Group Corp., which is majority owned by Donald Trump, plans to sell offerings tied to his agenda.
The parent of the Truth Social platform, where the president is also a prominent poster, has announced plans for and trademarked the names of a group of financial products under the Truth.Fi banner—investments that will potentially benefit from the president’s policies with bets on energy, crypto and domestic manufacturing. The proposed products include exchange-traded funds, or portfolios that trade like stocks that can be purchased through most brokers.
Details on the products’ structures and strategies are still scarce. ETFs are subject to approval by regulators, and no public filings are available yet. Yet the brand-building has already begun. So have the arguments. Critics see a sitting US president having a financial stake in the success of funds that are associated with his brand and his politics, built on strategies that he can influence from the White House.
“These transactions fly in the face of government ethics standards,” says Michael Posner, professor of ethics and finance at NYU Stern School of Business. “When you’re president, the assumption is that 100% of your energy is devoted to serving the country—not monetizing your public platform.”
The administration says the president is walled off. “President Trump’s assets are in a trust managed by his children,” Deputy Press Secretary Anna Kelly said in a statement. “There are no conflicts of interest.” Trump Media did not respond to a request for comment.
US presidents aren’t required under federal law to divest assets, but past leaders have done so or used blind trusts to avoid perceived conflicts. Trump, however, has maintained financial exposure through family-controlled structures. Right before taking office again, he transferred about $4 billion worth of Trump Media shares to a trust controlled by his son Donald Trump Jr. But the arrangement is not a blind trust with independent oversight.
The concern among ethics experts isn’t only the ownership. It’s the overlap between policy and potential monetary benefit. The Truth.Fi funds could rise and fall in line with decisions the president makes in office. Protectionist policies aimed at various sectors and countries could help the proposed Truth.Fi Made in America ETF, which is set to bet on reshoring. Deregulatory moves in favor of crypto may boost a Bitcoin-themed ETF. And so on.
The crypto angle is a familiar one. Trump and his family have already profited from the digital-asset boom, hyping up a cryptocurrency bearing his name. Such so-called memecoins have no underlying value as investments, but creators of Trump’s coin recently held a promotion offering top holders a private dinner with the president. A company affiliated with the Trump Organization owns a large chunk of the Trump memecoins. Another Trump family-linked company, World Liberty Financial, has also issued its own cryptocurrencies, including a dollar-linked digital token called a stablecoin. World Liberty recently announced the coin would be used to complete a $2 billion transaction between a state-backed Abu Dhabi company and the overseas crypto exchange Binance. Senators Elizabeth Warren of Massachusetts and Jeff Merkley of Oregon have said the stablecoin offers “opportunities for unprecedented corruption” because the Trump family can benefit financially from the use of its product.
In its ETF announcement, Trump Media said the proposed products, which include portfolios known as separately managed accounts in addition to ETFs, offer a conservative alternative to “woke” investing. It’s a niche currently occupied by funds including the Point Bridge America First ETF and the God Bless America ETF, among others. Both have gathered only modest assets, as have left-leaning ETFs, thanks in part to a saturated ETF market that’s making life harder for newbie issuers.
There are already about 60 ETFs based on Bitcoin, a tally that’s grown by at least 22 this year. In addition, there are more than 60 funds tied to energy, including coal, and at least three from issuers including Tema and BlackRock Inc.’s iShares based on reshoring and manufacturing, according to data compiled by Bloomberg.
Trump Media “will be depending on its brand recognition to set its ETFs apart among a crowd of competing products,” says Roxanna Islam, head of sector and industry research at ETF shop TMX VettaFi. “A strong political following may help gather initial support, but in the long run, flows will ultimately depend on ETF basics like fees and performance.”
The company has announced plans to seed the funds with as much as $250 million. It’s working with trading platform Crypto.com and investment firm Yorkville Advisors to help run the funds. Still, its biggest unrivaled asset is Trump himself. Even if he’s not an explicit spokesperson, almost everything he does makes him a potential ad for the company. “What a competing fund doesn’t have is a person who’s in the news literally every day who can then talk about these things,” says Philip Nichols, a professor of legal studies and business ethics at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania.
Hal Lambert, who runs the MAGA ETF and has raised money for Trump’s presidential runs, dismisses concerns about conflicts. For one, the president’s views on issues such as domestic manufacturing have been publicly known for decades. There are more direct ways to have a seat at the table than buying an ETF, he says; people can give money to campaigns or political action committees, for instance. “I just don’t know that that stuff would work on him,” Lambert says. “Trump does what he wants to do.”
Power is the ability to get others to do what you want. That can be accomplished by coercion (“sticks”), payment (“carrots”) or attraction (“honey”). The first two methods are forms of hard power; attraction is soft power. Soft power grows out of a country’s culture, its political values and its foreign policies. In the short term, hard power usually trumps soft power. But over the long term, soft power often prevails. Joseph Stalin once mockingly asked, “How many divisions does the pope have?” But the papacy continues today, while Stalin’s Soviet Union is long gone.
When a nation is attractive, it can economize on carrots and sticks. If allies see the United States as benign and trustworthy, they are more likely to be open to persuasion and to following our lead. If they see us as an unreliable bully, they are more likely to drag their feet and reduce their interdependence when they can. Cold War Europe is a good example. A Norwegian historian described Europe as divided into a Soviet and an American empire. But there was a crucial difference: The American side was “an empire by invitation” rather than coercion. The Soviets had to deploy troops to Budapest in 1956, and to Prague in 1968. In contrast, NATO has voluntarily increased its membership.
Nations need both hard and soft power. Machiavelli said it was better for a prince to be feared than to be loved. But it is best to be both.
Because soft power is rarely sufficient by itself, and because its effects take longer to realize, political leaders are often tempted to resort to the hard power of coercion or payment. When wielded alone, however, hard power is an unnecessarily high-cost proposition. The Berlin Wall did not succumb to an artillery barrage; it was felled by hammers and bulldozers wielded by people who had lost faith in communism and were drawn to Western values.
After World War II, the United States was by far the most powerful country because of its hard and soft power. It attempted to enshrine its values in what became known as the liberal international order — a soft power framework made up of the United Nations, economic and trade institutions, and other multilateral bodies. Of course, the U.S. did not always live up to its liberal values, and Cold War bipolarity limited the order it led to only half the world’s people.
Donald Trump is the first American president to reject the idea that soft power has any value in foreign policy. Among his first actions upon returning to office were withdrawing from the Paris climate agreement and the World Health Organization, despite the obvious threats that global warming and pandemics pose.
The effects of the Trump administration’s surrendering soft power are all too predictable. Trying to coerce democratic allies such as Denmark or Canada weakens trust in the U.S. among all our alliances. Threatening Panama reawakens fears of imperialism throughout Latin America. Crippling the U.S. Agency for International Development — created by President Kennedy in 1961 — undercuts our reputation for benevolence. Silencing Voice of America is a gift to authoritarian rivals. Slapping tariffs on friends makes us appear unreliable. Trying to chill free speech at home undermines our credibility. This list could go on.
China, which Trump defines as America’s great challenge, itself has been investing in soft power since 2007, when then-Chinese President Hu Jintao told the Chinese Communist Party that the country needed to make itself more attractive to others. But China has long faced two major obstacles in this respect. First, it maintains territorial disputes with multiple neighbors. Second, the communists insist on maintaining tight control over civil society. When public opinion polls ask people around the world which countries they find attractive, China doesn’t shine. But one can only wonder what these surveys will show in future years if Trump keeps undercutting American soft power.
Of course American soft power has had its ups and downs. The U.S. was unpopular in many countries during the Vietnam and Iraq wars. But soft power derives from a country’s society and culture as well as from government actions. When crowds marched through streets around the world in freedom protests, they sang the American civil rights anthem “We Shall Overcome.” An open society that allows protest can be a soft-power asset.
But will America’s cultural soft power survive a downturn in the government’s soft power over the next four years?
American democracy is likely to survive the next four years of Trump. The country has a resilient political culture and the Constitution encourages checks and balances, whatever their weaknesses. In 2026, there is a reasonable chance that Democrats will regain control of the House of Representatives. Moreover, American civil society remains strong, and the courts independent. Many organizations have launched lawsuits to challenge Trump’s actions, and markets have signaled dissatisfaction with his economic policies.
American soft power recovered after low points during the Vietnam and Iraq wars, as well as during Trump’s first term. But once trust is lost, it is not easily restored. After the invasion of Ukraine, Russia lost most of what soft power it had. Right now, China is striving to fill any soft power gaps that Trump creates. The way Chinese President Xi Jinping tells it, the East is rising over the West.
If Trump thinks he can compete with China while weakening trust among American allies, asserting imperial aspirations, destroying USAID, silencing Voice of America, challenging laws at home and withdrawing from U.N. agencies, he is likely to fail. Restoring what he has destroyed will not be impossible, but it will be costly.
Joseph S. Nye Jr. was dean of the Harvard Kennedy School and a U.S. assistant secretary of Defense. His memoir “A Life in the American Century”was published last year. Nye died earlier this month.
The failure of one of Skid Row’s largest homeless housing providers represents a dire warning for the viability of supportive housing in Los Angeles, according to a new report on the organization’s demise.
Without major changes, other supportive housing providers remain at risk, imperiling housing for thousands of the region’s most vulnerable residents and exposing taxpayers to further bailouts, said Claire Knowlton, a Los Angeles-based financial consultant for nonprofits and the report’s lead author.
“This is a wake-up call,” Knowlton said. “It’s time to dig in and figure out a vision for this sector moving forward.”
Once considered a national leader in homeless housing, the trust announced in early 2023 it could no longer manage its 2,000 units across 29 properties, many of which were renovated, century-old single-room occupancy hotels in and around Skid Row. The decision came after years of financial trouble with buildings in disrepair and disarray, replete with squatters, crime, nonfunctional elevators and clogged and broken toilets.
Researchers received access to the trust’s internal financial data and interviewed more than 30 people, including former trust executives and those knowledgeable about its operations, to produce the report.
The report, which was funded by the Conrad N. Hilton Foundation, is not meant to be a definitive understanding of the trust’s failure, Knowlton said. Times reporting has shown questionable decision-making, financial mismanagement and unstable leadership marked the organization’s final few years. The report did not examine specific actions made by trust executives. Joanne Cordero, the trust’s final CEO who took over amid its spiral in late 2022, was a co-author.
The root of the trust’s problems, the report determined, was that tenants’ public rental subsidies did not provide enough revenue to manage the buildings, including costs needed to assist those dealing with mental illness and drug addiction. All trust properties, including newer buildings with studio and one-bedroom apartments, were running annual deficits — nearly $1 million in one case — once factoring in long-term maintenance expenses, the report found.
Not only were the rental subsidies insufficient to cover costs, but also the funding came through multiple programs that paid the trust wildly disparate rates for rooms without any clear way to increase them. Similar trust buildings received subsidies priced at a difference of up to $600 per unit per month.
The report called the calculation of these rates “cryptic” and their variability “indefensible.”
“The subsidies are not covering the cost,” Knowlton said. “The increases are inconsistent. The subsidy types are inconsistent, and there’s no reason.”
The report cites 2015 as a turning point for trust properties. That year, the region implemented a new coordinated entry system for placing homeless residents into trust buildings and other supportive housing through a process designed to prioritize rooms for the neediest.
The system has been criticized broadly among homeless housing providers for taking too long to match potential residents with units and for concentrating too many people with mental illness, physical disabilities and addiction problems within buildings.
After its implementation, vacancies in trust buildings skyrocketed, which further sapped the organization’s revenues. Spending on security immediately jumped from $50,000 annually prior to 2016 to well over $500,000 after, and ultimately soaring above $1.4 million by 2022.
Knowlton said she could not determine that the coordinated entry system was the source of these problems as other factors played a role. The portfolio’s vacancies were stabilizing until staffing and maintenance woes amid the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020 sent them spiraling. Deteriorating conditions in Skid Row broadly over the same period also could explain the greater security needs, she said.
Still, Knowlton said that local leaders should reevaluate decisions to house those with the most severe health problems in single-room occupancy hotels, which have shared kitchen and bathroom facilities.
“I don’t think single-room occupancy is the right type of housing for people with high levels of mental health needs or extreme substance use issues,” she said.
Reaching similar conclusions during the receivership, city housing officials advocated for tearing down trust SROs and replacing them with new efficiency and one-bedroom apartment buildings, but they abandoned that plan as too risky, expensive and disruptive.
Knowlton is pushing to overhaul the region’s system for funding supportive housing, noting that the problems she identified were universal.
Rent subsidies, Knowlton said, should be set to the cost of providing supportive housing, including social services. Doing so, however, would require significant and ongoing funding boosts at the federal level, which she deemed “extremely ambitious.” In the short term, she argued government agencies should increase and standardize the subsidies to reduce their variability.
“That’s going to give us the time and the cushion that we need to really set that longer term vision around how these buildings are stewarded as public assets, as community assets, because that’s what they are,” she said.
When the trust failed, the city stepped in to save critical last-resort housing, but at great cost to taxpayers and without resolving underlying problems in the supportive housing system, Knowlton said. Federal, state and local leaders should do everything they can to avoid a similar situation from occurring again, she said.
The trust’s collapse, Knowlton said, was, “a canary in the coal mine situation.”
Times staff writer Douglas Smith contributed to this report.
The BBC can help tackle a “crisis of trust” in UK society, the broadcaster’s director general has said.
Tim Davie has set out measures he says will allow the broadcaster to play a leading role in reversing a breakdown in trust in information and institutions, as well as combating division and disconnection between people.
They include expanding fact-checking service BBC Verify, giving children lessons about disinformation, and doing more to scrutinise local politicians.
“The BBC is ready to play its full part – not simply defending tradition, but shaping the future,” he said in a speech on Wednesday.
“A future where trusted information strengthens democracy, where every child has a fair start, where creativity fuels growth and social capital, and where no-one is left behind in the digital age.”
Mr Davie added: “The future of our civilised, cohesive, democratic society is, for the first time in my life, at risk.”
The speech to civic and community leaders in Salford set out Mr Davie’s vision for the corporation’s future.
The BBC’s current royal charter, which sets out the terms and purposes of its existence, expires in 2027, and negotiations with the government about its renewal are ramping up.
“We believe that we must reform faster and get more support to avoid decline,” he said.
He said he was not asking for the “status quo” in funding, and said he would “keep an open mind” about the future of the licence fee or what could replace it.
“We want modernisation and reform,” he said. But any future method of funding must ensure the BBC remains a universal service, he stressed.
“All the funding models that have been floated in the debate have their merits and drawbacks. But some such as advertising or subscription don’t pass the test of building a universal trusted public service.
“Beyond that, we keep an open mind. And we continue to actively explore all options that can make our funding model fairer, more modern, and more sustainable.”
He also called for “more help” from the government to fund the World Service, calling it a “priceless national asset”, and saying “the government should invest for significant growth, not survival”.
However, there have been recent reports that ministers are drawing up plans for cuts to World Service funding.
Mr Davie argued that the BBC could play a key part in making the UK a “global leader in trusted information”, support democracy, boost education and economic growth, and improve digital access.
The BBC’s future would involve “doubling down on impartiality, championing free, fair reporting alongside landmark investigative journalism, investing in BBC Verify and InDepth as well as increasing transparency and holding our nerve amidst culture wars”, he said.
The BBC can “help turn the tide” and improve trust by “dramatically increasing” the amound of news coverage on platforms like YouTube and Tik Tok have a stronger presence amid the online noise.
It will combine AI agent technology with BBC journalism to create “a new gold standard fact checking tool”, he said, but without relinquishing editorial oversight.
“Our aim is to work globally with other public service broadcasters to ensure a healthy core of fact-based news.”
The BBC will also:
Expand its expand Local Democracy Reporting Service from focusing on local councils to scrutinise health authorities, police and crime commissioners, and regional mayors
Create specialist BBC Insight teams across the UK to do more investigative reporting, and expand local BBC Verify and InDepth work
Launch new political debate radio shows for different areas, modelled on Radio 4’s Any Questions
Give every child “proper training on disinformation” and potentially develop qualifications in disinformation studies
Offer offer a new BBC family account for every parent of a young child, offering support at key milestones from birth to leaving school
Move more executive roles outside London
The BBC says it is the most trusted news provider in the UK, with 45% of the population naming it as the source they trusted the most in 2024. That is down from 57% a decade ago.
Mr Davie also called for a national plan to switch off traditional broadcast transmissions in the 2030s, and ensure a “smooth” transition to internet-only delivery of programmes.
The BBC could launch its own device aimed at people who haven’t switched to streaming, based on the existing Freely online service, Mr Davie said.
“We want to double down on Freely as a universal free service to deliver live TV over broadband.
“And we want to consider developing and launching a streaming media device with Freely capabilities built in, with a radically simplified user interface specifically designed to help those yet to benefit from IP services.”
Beirut, Lebanon – More than five years into an economic crisis that sent inflation spiralling and saw the Lebanese lira plummet, Lebanon’s government is facing its biggest infrastructure project in years: Post-war reconstruction.
After 14 months of war with Israel, Lebanon needs $11bn to rebuild, according to World Bank estimates.
But, experts say, donors do not trust the Lebanese political class, which has a track record of funnelling construction contracting money to politically connected businessmen.
The needs
In addition to more than 4,000 deaths, the war took a vast material toll on the country already reeling from a multi-year economic crisis.
About 10 percent of the homes in Lebanon – some 163,000 units – were damaged or destroyed, to say nothing of the more than $1bn in infrastructure damage.
Most observers, and the new government formed in February, say Lebanon will again need foreign aid, as it did after a previous war with Israel in 2006.
But that aid has been slower to arrive than in 2006, with donor attention divided between Lebanon, Syria, and Gaza, and major donors like the United States pushing for the Hezbollah group’s disarmament as a precondition.
Hezbollah, until recently the most powerful political and military force in the country, suffered severe blows during the war and has seen its power curtailed, although many Lebanese continue to support it.
The country’s south, east, and Beirut’s southern suburbs bore the brunt of Israel’s offensive. Together, they are home to most of Hezbollah’s constituents, so restoring their homes and livelihoods is a priority for the party.
That translates into leverage for foreign donor states.
The problem
Politically connected companies overcharged the state’s main infrastructure buyer, the Council for Development and Reconstruction (CDR), by 35 percent between 2008 and 2018, a 2022 study by local think tank The Policy Initiative found.
And the primary contracting regulation was so riddled with exceptions that as little as 5 percent of tenders were under the Central Tenders Board’s oversight.
All that came to a head in 2020, when a huge blast in Beirut’s port tore through much of the capital and donors decided they wanted nothing to do with the state, according to Khalil Gebara, economist and former World Bank consultant who previously advised the Lebanese government.
“Donors stopped transferring money to national authorities or to the treasury,” he said, because they had “a total lack of trust in national mechanisms”.
Instead, donors controlled spending directly or via a World Bank-managed trust fund, or worked through NGOs, Gebara added.
That year, the state, which was stalling on implementing International Monetary Fund conditions in exchange for a partial bailout, spent just $38m on its physical investments, down from more than $1.1bn in 2018, the year before the economic collapse, according to Ministry of Finance data.
(Al Jazeera)
Trying for solutions
A year later, Lebanon passed what many considered a landmark reform to state contracting, one of the few reform laws passed in recent years.
It dragged virtually the entire public sector into one unified framework, abolished a classification system that had frozen out contractors without political connections, and created a new regulator – the Public Procurement Authority (PPA).
As crisis-ridden state agencies were corralled into the new system, public investment continued to fall, hitting below $10m in 2022.
“Procurement is going to be a big thing … and absolutely the test for the procurement system and for the regulatory authority,” said Lamia Moubayed, head of an in-house research and training institute at Lebanon’s Finance Ministry.
Rana Rizkallah, a procurement expert at the same institute, says the law is solid, but it’s up to the government to implement what it promised, adding that a crucial part of that is staffing the regulator.
The PPA is supposed to be a board of five members backed by a team of 83 staffers but, three years after the law went into effect in 2022, it has a single member and five employees overseeing 1,400 purchasing bodies.
A four-member complaints board that the law established also has yet to be formed, so complaints still go to Lebanon’s slow, overburdened courts.
Jean Ellieh, the regulator’s president and sole member, says the state doesn’t have the “logistical capacity” to recruit dozens of regulators in one fell swoop, but he’s put in a request for new hires.
“We will work with determination and resolve, regardless of our capabilities,” Ellieh told Al Jazeera. “We will not give anyone an excuse to evade the application of the law.”
He added that donors have expressed “satisfaction” with the PPA’s abilities.
Bonanzas to the well-connected
After several lean years in which the state had to keep spending to a bare minimum, the contracting scene remains dominated by the large companies that built up enough resources from earlier rounds of investment to stay afloat.
Wassim Maktabi, economist and co-author of the 2022 report on cartel behaviour in construction contracting, said it would be a tall order to ensure that reconstruction isn’t another bonanza for the well-connected.
“Rest assured that these political elites will not let this slip,” he said.
In addition, years of high-value contracts mean politically connected firms have accumulated the capital to be, in most respects, bigger and more experienced than competitors.
“Even if political influence was not a factor and you awarded these contracts purely based on merit,” he said, these firms “would still get a large piece of the pie”.
Despite a ceasefire, Israel has continued attacking Lebanon, increasing the damage (Al Jazeera)
Regardless, Maktabi says, reconstruction is simply too important to stall in pursuit of perfection.
Al Jazeera has identified 152 reconstruction contracts totalling more than $30m that are already under way, via the PPA’s online portal. Of the top four contract winners in dollar terms, two have political connections mentioned in media reports.
The top four companies, Beta Engineering and Contracting, Elie Naim Maalouf Company, Al Bonyan Engineering and Contracting, and Yamen General Trading and Contracting, have won contracts totalling $10.6m, $4.7m, $1.8m, and $1.4m, respectively – 60 percent of the total amount awarded in the PPA contracts examined.
Pushing for reformist credibility
The new government is negotiating with the World Bank on a $980m plan, known as LEAP, to kick-start reconstruction and be funded by a World Bank loan and foreign assistance.
But LEAP would only take care of a fraction of the total reconstruction costs.
The government also started hiring for a long-stalled electricity regulatory board and new faces on the CDR board.
A woman walks through the damage an Israeli airstrike caused, in Beirut on April 1, 2025 [Mohamed Azakir/Reuters]
Moubayed says refreshing the CDR board is a World Bank requirement to approve LEAP, which would be a vital win for a government pushing to gain reformist credibility.
The World Bank declined to comment on whether refreshing the CDR board is a requirement.
It’s still unclear how the programme might be structured, but the government has endorsed the creation of a trust fund for post-war reconstruction, “characterised by transparency”.
But, Beirut residents were unhappy with a similar model used in 2020 for the Port blast reconstruction, architect and urbanist Abir Saksouk of Public Works Studio says.
A lack of equity between residents, based on which organisation took over repairing each area, further eroded a sense of shared citizenship, she says, calling it an experience that shouldn’t be repeated.
She is one of many calling for an inclusive reconstruction process led by all stakeholders, including people who have suffered damages, and with the involvement of relevant ministries, because they are a vital part of the process.
“We need a reconstruction framework where state institutions are present… But we also need other representation,” she said.
National Trust says Birling Gap and the Seven Sisters in East Sussex “is unable to cope with” a rise in coach visits in recent years – but has encouraged such parties to use nearby car parks instead
03:38, 06 May 2025Updated 03:43, 06 May 2025
Tourists pose pictures at Birling Gap in East Sussex(Image: Adam Gerrard / Daily Mirror)
A decision by the National Trust to ban coaches from using its car park at a popular beauty spot has backfired, residents claim.
The organisation took action last month in a bid to reduce visitor numbers at Birling Gap and the Seven Sisters in East Sussex, where the South Downs meets the English Channel. It was said narrow B-roads around the attraction became congested with SUVs, minibuses and coaches during peak times.
But locals say coaches are still descending in their droves and parking their 70-seat vehicles on the verges, making it almost impossible for cars to pass and blocking residents from their own homes.
Phil Myerson, a 75-year-old man who lives in the area, said: “The coach ban hasn’t come a moment too soon but it has completely backfired. Tourists are wrecking this place. If anything they are causing more damage now than they were before.
“Coach operators are completely flouting safety guidelines, pulling up on the roadside, disembarking passengers into the road and then parking and causing an obstruction for all other vehicles. As a result tourists are trampling over the wild flowers, grasslands and verges and in the heat the place is turning into a dustbowl.”
The spot – although it poses hazards – is a big favourite for overseas tourists(Image: Adam Gerrard / Daily Mirror)
Coaches have been banned from the attraction on the south coast(Image: Adam Gerrard / Daily Mirror)
It is understood to be the first time the National Trust has imposed a ban on coaches at one of their attractions. However, as Mail Online reports, the charity said it took the unusual step after seeing the damage caused by the increase in the number of tourists at Birling Gap and Seven Sisters.
Photographs taken at the site in recent years show tourists gathering dangerously close to the cliff edge. People are sometimes seen posing for selfies as they dice with death, yards from a 530-foot plunge to the beach. In 2018, around 350,000 tourists visited each year but that ballooned to 600,000 people last year.
One regular hiker, Jon Ledham, told Mail Online this week: “The coach drivers are flouting safety laws by dropping their passengers directly into the road or grass verges. That needs to be stopped and steps need to be taken to ensure it stops. It is a huge danger on this road and it needs policing.”
The location has become increasingly popular due to its appearances on TV, film and music videos. It appeared in Atonement with Keira Knightly and James McAvoy, Robin Hood, Prince of Thieves with Kevin Costner and Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire.
A National Trust spokesman said: “We urge people to be responsible when parking at Birling Gap and to think of local residents and safe access for emergency vehicles.
“We encourage coach operators to use the dedicated coach parking facilities in the nearby area. We’ve seen a significant increase in coach visits in recent years, which the site is unable to cope with. We continue to welcome visitors by car, motorbike, minibus and bus service.” It added the move was not a Trust-wide policy and was made in response to a specific problem in Birling Gap and Seven Sisters.
