Ric Grenell Texts Allege Access-for-Donation Deal
Left 50%
Center 0%
Right 50%
1 left · 0 center · 1 right
What happened
Axios first reported on 2026-10-20 that Ric Grenell, former executive director of the Kennedy Center, allegedly texted Turkish billionaire Turhan Mildon on May 3, 2025: “Once the money comes to the company here, I will arrange the donation to Kennedy Centre [sic], and you’ll be joining the VIP events and get close with the administration, even with POTUS.” The New York Post credited Axios as the origin; the first on-record source was the White House counsel’s office, which the Post reported on 2026-10-20 has been investigating Grenell for allegedly failing to provide the center an approximately $5.6 million donation meant to be drawn from a $17.6 million May 29, 2025 wire to Texas Armament & Technology — a transfer Mildon documented but that Axios said originated with the Democratic Republic of Congo’s Ministère des Finances, not Mildon. Alina Habba, whom Mildon married on Sept. 26 after they met at the Kennedy Center, told President Trump in an Oct. 9 Oval Office meeting that her husband had been “duped” into providing the funds; Grenell denied sending the text, citing the British spelling “Centre.” Mildon, who has said he operated mines in the DRC and state-owned cement plants in Venezuela, had earlier dealings with Grenell from Grenell’s time as a Trump envoy to Nicolás Maduro; after U.S. troops captured Maduro on Jan. 3, Venezuelan interim president Delcy Rodríguez canceled Mildon’s cement-plant contract in June and later paused that termination after learning of his relationship with Habba.
Sourcing check · Mostly on the record · 2 articles
1 of 2 articles cite a named source for the story. It was on the record from the first report, credited to Axios. Most articles credit Axios rather than reporting it themselves.
What these terms mean and how they're counted
- On the record · names a source 1 of 2
- On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: White House counsel’s office
- Primary evidence · cites a document or data 1 of 2
- Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: text messages, financial records
- Credits another outlet 1 of 2
- The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Axios
- Unnamed sources 1 of 2
- The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this. Here: e.g. “a Post source”
- How it developed
- When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 20, 00:01 UTC by New York Post, crediting Axios, naming its source. First document in the first report, from New York Post (text messages).
- Not counted 0
- Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
Omitted — what each side leaves out
Unpacked
The two sides are not covering the same deal. Right-leaning coverage is the only account of Grenell's alleged offer of Trump access for a Kennedy Center donation that was never deposited. It also reports that Habba told the president her husband had been duped, prompting a counsel's office inquiry. Left-leaning coverage omits that episode and instead reports that Julio Herrera Velutini received a pardon after his daughter gave Habba an "extraordinarily lucrative job."
Right-leaning coverage leads with Grenell offering access and a gift that vanished. Left-leaning coverage leads with a billionaire who wanted a pardon. One side's first fact is the other's missing plot. The shared figure is Habba, not the transaction.
Has the White House counsel investigation established whether the Kennedy Center ever received the money, and from whom?
Bottom line
You can finish the Times story on Habba and still not know the Post's account that Grenell was under White House counsel review over a Kennedy Center gift that was never deposited.
The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
- Grenell allegedly offered Trump access in exchange for a Kennedy Center donation that was never deposited
- The alleged Kennedy Center donation was $5.6 million
- A $17.6 million wire was sent to Texas Armament & Technology
- Axios reported the wire came from the Democratic Republic of Congo's Ministère des Finances, not from Mildon
- Grenell denied sending the text and pointed to the British spelling of Centre
The Left View
Left-leaning coverage, as given by the New York Times, treats Habba as a paid gateway to presidential outcomes: it reports that Julio Herrera Velutini, a prominent Venezuelan “seeking clemency,” “got it not long after his daughter gave Ms. Habba… an extraordinarily lucrative job” — a $50 million deal. In related Times reporting cited alongside this episode, Rodríguez paused canceling Mildon’s Venezuelan cement contract after learning of his marriage to Habba, and the Times jointly reported that the underlying business involved the DRC. That framing presents the Grenell texts as another instance of foreign businessmen obtaining relief from Trump’s government after large sums or commercial opportunity moved toward people in his inner circle, rather than as a story of Habba’s husband being cheated.
The Right View
The New York Post frames the episode as an alleged scam by an “embattled” Grenell who offered Habba’s husband “access to Trump” for a Kennedy Center donation “that vanished,” with Habba telling Trump that Mildon was “duped.” It foregrounds the White House counsel investigation of Grenell, Grenell’s denial of the text (the British “Centre”), and Axios’s account that the $17.6 million came from the DRC finance ministry rather than Mildon — undercutting a simple picture of Mildon buying access with his own money. Habba and Mildon appear as complainants who brought missing funds to the president, not as brokers of a completed access-for-donation bargain.
Our Take (balanced)
The left’s strongest argument is the Habba pattern: a clemency grant arriving “not long after” a $50 million family deal, plus a Venezuelan contract cancellation paused once officials learned of the Habba marriage — correlating her proximity with official relief. The right’s strongest argument is the record of this episode: a text tying VIP/POTUS access to a donation, funds that never reached the Kennedy Center, Habba’s complaint that Mildon was “duped,” a White House counsel investigation aimed at Grenell, and his denial of authorship. The central unresolved tension is whether Habba is a broker in a pay-to-play market around Trump or a complainant whose husband was allegedly cheated by Grenell — a question that turns on who sent the May 3 text, whether the wire was Mildon’s money or the DRC’s, and whether any access was actually delivered.
2 sources
More stories
The week's bottom lines, in your inbox
One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.