Italiano
He conducted himself like a head of state, exercising an extraordinary degree of autonomy that appeared to place him beyond the established chain of command. Paolo Zampolli’s removal from Donald Trump’s administration may have broader political implications than a personal dispute with Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau. Behind the dismissal of the Italian-American businessman, a longtime friend of the president who served as US Special Representative for Global Partnerships until October 15, lies a fundamental question about control over American foreign policy: how far can someone close to the White House go in conducting diplomatic initiatives, meeting representatives of foreign governments and promoting international agreements without going through the State Department?
The immediate explanation for his dismissal came from Politico, which reconstructed months of clashes between Zampolli and Landau through a series of emails. But an examination of the former representative’s international activities suggests that the dispute went beyond questions of hierarchy. From Russia to Serbia, from Republika Srpska to Central Asia, Zampolli had developed a network of political and economic relationships that appeared to extend well beyond his cultural mandate. What remains unclear is whether these initiatives were directly authorized by Trump, tolerated by the White House or pursued with a degree of autonomy that the State Department was no longer prepared to accept.
One particularly significant development emerged from Russia. Yesterday, on the very day of his dismissal, the Russian state news agency TASS published an extensive interview with Zampolli, identifying him as a special representative of the US president. The subject was sports cooperation between the United States and the Russian Federation, but the discussion went well beyond organizing competitions. Zampolli argued that sport could reopen channels of dialogue closed by political tensions and proposed structured cooperation between Washington and Moscow, including hockey games, football matches, exchanges involving athletes and coaches, and a joint coordination mechanism.
The former representative had also expressed support for the gradual reintegration of Russian athletes into international competitions, hoping for their fuller participation in the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics. He welcomed the return of the Russian flag and national anthem at the Paralympic Games in Italy, describing it as an important step forward. These remarks, however, did not constitute an official announcement by Washington concerning the restoration of Russian participation under national symbols. They were statements made by Zampolli during an interview, with no corresponding decision by US authorities or Olympic governing bodies having been established.
The most relevant detail is that Zampolli had already met Russian Sports Minister Mikhail Degtyarev on September 1 in Bishkek, Kyrgyzstan. In his interview with TASS, he confirmed that the two had discussed the 2028 Olympics and prospects for sports cooperation between their respective countries. He also expressed a willingness to travel to Moscow to achieve concrete results, provided there were clearly defined objectives and support from the appropriate institutional channels. The meeting with Degtyarev therefore establishes that direct contact had taken place with a member of the Russian government, while his willingness to visit Moscow confirms his intention to develop that channel further.
Sports diplomacy does not, in itself, constitute a violation of a cultural representative’s mandate. In Zampolli’s case, however, it takes on a different significance when viewed against the backdrop of his confrontation with Landau. According to emails obtained by Politico and also reported by Corriere della Sera, as early as November 14, 2025, the deputy secretary of state had ordered him to cease activities not directly related to cultural diplomacy. The message, copied to 15 other officials, left little doubt about the existence of an institutional conflict. Landau challenged Zampolli over foreign policy initiatives and commercial and economic activities he considered unauthorized, going so far as to warn of disciplinary consequences and dismissal.
Zampolli rejected the accusations and invoked his direct relationship with Trump. This confrontation lies at the heart of the affair. On one side stood the State Department, determined to retain control over diplomatic initiatives; on the other, a presidential representative who believed he could operate on the strength of the president’s personal confidence. The issue was not merely who had the authority to issue instructions, but who had the power to represent the United States in its dealings with foreign governments.
A second line of inquiry leads to the Balkans, where Zampolli’s activities had taken on an even more explicitly political character. On February 10, 2026, the Republika Srpska news agency SRNA reported a meeting in Banja Luka between the American representative and Milorad Dodik, leader of the SNSD and former president of the Serb entity within Bosnia and Herzegovina. Dodik described the meeting as a continuation of a visit to Washington and an opportunity to strengthen dialogue with international centers of power, explicitly emphasizing Zampolli’s closeness to Trump.
The context is crucial. Republika Srpska is not an independent state but one of the two entities that make up Bosnia and Herzegovina. Dodik’s political initiatives, his advocacy of greater autonomy for the Serb entity and his repeated confrontations with Bosnia’s central institutions have long had an international dimension. His ties with Moscow and his positions on Bosnia and Herzegovina’s constitutional structure make any contact with American representatives that could be interpreted as political recognition particularly sensitive.
Against this backdrop, Zampolli’s presence in Banja Luka appears to have been more than a routine exercise in cultural diplomacy. Dodik presented the meeting as part of a political relationship with Washington, while the reference to the representative’s personal closeness to Trump enhanced its symbolic significance. There is, however, no evidence that Zampolli had been authorized to negotiate matters concerning the status of Republika Srpska or the institutional framework of Bosnia and Herzegovina.
Politico’s account adds a significant detail: Landau reportedly intervened to clarify the limits of Zampolli’s authority to Serbian officials. When considered alongside the emails insisting that the representative remain within his cultural mandate, this episode shows that the State Department’s concerns were not confined to internal disagreements. They had already affected dealings with foreign counterparts.
Russia and Republika Srpska therefore represent two distinct aspects of the same underlying issue. In the first case, Zampolli promoted a revival of US-Russian relations through sport, meeting a Russian government minister and proposing new bilateral initiatives. In the second, he engaged with a central figure in Bosnia’s political tensions, in circumstances where his proximity to the White House could be interpreted as a signal of American support. There is insufficient public evidence to suggest that the two activities were coordinated or formed part of a common strategy. Both, however, help explain why the State Department may have regarded the representative’s operational autonomy as problematic.
Adding another layer of complexity was the economic dimension. Landau had also challenged Zampolli over potentially unauthorized commercial activities. The former representative, for his part, maintained that he had helped facilitate major deals, including Uzbekistan Airways’ purchase of 22 Boeing aircraft. The issue touches on a defining feature of Trump’s foreign policy, in which diplomatic relationships, investment and commercial agreements are often closely intertwined. But promoting economic opportunities within the scope of an authorized appointment is one thing; using a government position to pursue initiatives without coordinating with the relevant institutions is quite another. Landau’s allegations, however, do not amount to proof of unlawful conduct.
The dismissal came just hours after Politico published its investigation. A US administration official confirmed that Zampolli’s appointment had been terminated and that the businessman was no longer a government employee. Zampolli said he was not surprised by the decision and posted a conciliatory message on X, noting that Trump had extended his appointment by more than six months and thanking the president, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and the administration.
According to Zampolli’s own account to Corriere della Sera, Trump personally called him and encouraged him to return to business. The former representative’s version suggests a mutually agreed departure, or at least one that did not involve a definitive personal rupture. The official confirmation of his dismissal and the previously documented conflict with Landau, however, point to a more complicated affair.
Finally, there is the timing of the TASS interview. On October 15, the Russian news agency portrayed Zampolli as an American interlocutor working to promote rapprochement between Moscow and Washington. That same day, news emerged of his removal from his State Department position. The sequence is politically significant, but it does not establish that the interview triggered his dismissal. It is not known when the interview was conducted or whether senior US officials were aware of its contents beforehand. Moreover, the dispute with Landau had begun many months earlier.
The affair may therefore have less to do with individual initiatives involving Russia or the Balkans than with the way Zampolli exercised his role. The former representative appeared to operate in a gray area between cultural diplomacy, personal political relationships and the promotion of economic agreements. His closeness to Trump gave him access and visibility, but not necessarily unlimited authority over foreign policy matters.
It is in this overlap of responsibilities that a possible political explanation for his removal emerges. The State Department may have been willing to accommodate a representative tasked with promoting cultural relations and international partnerships, but not one who appeared, in the eyes of foreign governments, to offer an alternative to official diplomatic channels.
The unanswered question is whether Trump decided to put an end to a form of personal diplomacy that had become too independent, or whether he simply chose to back Landau once the conflict became public. The available evidence does not allow for a definitive conclusion. What it does show, however, is that the affair involved far more than an exchange of emails: it was a fundamental dispute over who had the authority to speak and negotiate on behalf of the United States.
Accedi
