‘Why am I being singled out?’ a Russian state media pundit asks

But one related case stands out: a situation where, unusually, authorities are going after not just Russian companies and executives, but a U.S. citizen who works as a media personality on their payroll. On Sept. 5, the Justice Department unveiled criminal charges against Dimitri and Anastasia Simes, two dual Russian American citizens who have residences in both countries but now live in Moscow.

Dimitri Simes is the host of one of Russian state media’s most popular news commentary shows. But he’s also been a uniquely influential and controversial figure in U.S.-Russian relations, ever since he emigrated from Russia to the United States in 1973 and found his way into the inner circle of then-President Richard M. Nixon. Innocent or guilty, his prosecution raises real questions about fighting foreign influence by targeting journalists working for overseas news outlets — even if they are spreading what looks like propaganda.

On their face, the charges against the Simeses are not specifically about interfering in U.S. politics, though their timing and details of the indictment overlap heavily with the U.S. government’s larger crackdown on Russian state media. The Justice Department alleges Dimitri Simes accepted more than $1 million in salary after knowing that his employer, Russia’s government-owned Channel One, was designated for sanctions in 2022 after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The complaint further alleges Simes and his wife conspired to launder at least $380,000 of that money into their U.S. bank accounts by routing them through an Armenian bank. Anastasia Simes is separately charged with violating sanctions spending approximately $220,000 to purchase and ship artwork and antiques on behalf of Russian oligarch Aleksander Udovov.

In support of the charges, the indictment of Dimitri Simes alleges that he proposed building an “analytical center” with top Channel One executives and the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs to “study the actions of the United States in the international arena and the domestic political situation in the United States” and devise ways to counter U.S. actions in “defense of Russian interests.”

Notably, in the new set of actions by the Justice Department, Simes is the only pundit charged with attempting to help his employer evade sanctions, despite the fact that many U.S. citizens work for various Russian state media outlets with sanctions. (The FBI raided the home of former U.N. weapons inspector Scott Ritter, who has been a paid contributor to Russia Today, but he has not been charged.) Even in the case of Tenet Media, a pro-Trump U.S. news site allegedly covertly funded by the Russian government, the U.S. government did not charge the paid commentators.

That forms the basis of Simes’s claim he is being selectively prosecuted. “If this is really about sanctions violations, then why am I being singled out? The sanctions violation charge is an excuse, a pretext, because they don’t like what I’m saying,” he told me, noting that his show isn’t broadcast in the United States.

In an extensive interview from Moscow, Dimitri Simes spoke at length about the charges. He said he has no intention of coming back to the United States to face them because he does not think he would be fairly treated by the Biden administration’s Justice Department. “It’s not a happy situation for somebody who came to the United States in 1973 with the full intent to be an American. And I never even thought I would go back to Russia in any capacity,” he said. “Sometimes in life you have to make unpleasant choices.”

Simes offered specific defenses for each allegation, some more plausible than others. On the charge of participating in a scheme to evade sanctions, Simes claims he was advised by both Russian officials and unnamed U.S. officials that sanctions against Russian state media outlets were not intended to target the individual journalists working there.

As for the money-laundering charge, Simes said routing the money through an Armenian bank was the only way to pay his U.S. taxes and maintain his 132.6-acre house and ranch in Rappahannock, Va., which he bought for $1.32 million in 2021.

Regarding the analytical center, Simes told me that this was an idea for a think tank that would be independent but work with the Russian government, much like U.S. think tanks work with the U.S. government. But, he said, the idea never went anywhere and the center was never built. (Anastasia Simes declined to comment.)

His explanations deserve some skepticism, and ultimately their credibility and legal value should be decided in the courts. But on the broader issues surrounding his case, Simes raised legitimate questions. If the real reason Simes is being prosecuted is not breaking sanctions or money laundering but because of the opinions he’s espousing, what are the implications for other journalists working abroad?

Based on what is in the charging documents, the prosecution marks an expansion of the war against foreign influence that could have repercussions. The U.S. government protests when foreign countries charge, arrest or harass journalists working for U.S. media organizations, including ones who work for U.S. government outlets such as Voice of America. Going after a foreign journalist, even if his perspective is aligned with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s, undermines such objections.

Certainly, Simes has been saying some provocative things on his television show, “The Great Game,” since he moved back to Russia in October 2022. He has rooted for Trump against Vice President Kamala Harris and claimed the efforts to prosecute Trump are driven by “black racism.” He once said that it was wrong to compare Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to Winston Churchill, insisting Putin rightly deserved that comparison.

Sympathy for Simes in the D.C. foreign policy establishment is scarce. In 2016, as head of a D.C. think tank called the Center for the National Interest, Simes staged events publicly for the Trump campaign and privately peddled to them alleged dirt on the Clintons. He was investigated by special counsel Robert S. Mueller III and the Senate Intelligence Committee but never charged with any crime. It was around this time that Simes began working for Channel One and spending more time in Moscow.

Now, Simes’s steady pro-Putin rhetoric and proximity to top Russian leaders have convinced many in Washington that he is no longer working to improve the U.S.-Russia relationship, as he has long claimed as his goal. Instead, they believe, he is now a pure propagandist for Russia.

“He has always been an ambiguous figure in Washington regarding where his true loyalties lay,” former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine John Herbst told me. “I regret that he has now clearly jumped in with both feet on the side of an aggressor who identifies the United States as its principal adversary.”

By Simes’s telling, he is still trying to serve as a voice of reason inside the Russian intellectual spectrum arguing against nationalists who call for escalation, which is to the United States’ benefit. “For many years, I feel I was very loyal and indeed felt strongly about American interests, and I thought that these interests included a normal relationship with Russia,” he told me. “But now I think that we are in a clear and present danger of World War III and we find ourselves in a remarkable situation where if we say that, nobody is prepared to listen.”

As far as switching sides, Simes told me he did not turn on America but America turned on him. Before the war started, he tried to help officials in Washington and Moscow establish an informal dialogue, he said. But after the invasion began, positions hardened on both sides.

“I am not a propagandist. I am presenting my point of view. I absolutely enjoy doing it. And I reject the notion that I have taken any side,” he told me. “I thought the First Amendment was designed exactly to protect unpopular views.”

There is no First Amendment protection for taking money from a company with sanctions, or for funneling that money into the United States to pay taxes. After due process, Dimitri and Anastasia Simes might well face conviction; they don’t exactly seem like poster children for journalists charged unjustly with crimes.

But what’s at stake in the selective prosecution of their cases is not as simple as it might first seem. As Justice officials do the important work of pushing back on foreign governments attempting to sway our elections, they would be wise to take into consideration the implications this sticky case raises — and what it means to expand the net to foreign journalists, even ones who are pro-Putin.