ARCHITECTS WARN KUSHNER AGAIN: UAS sent an addendum to its letter about the General Staff one week before the fourth hearing!

The Association of Architects of Serbia (UAS) sent an addendum to its November 2025 letter to Jared Kushner, in which they advised him to abandon the project to build the “Trump” hotel at the site of the General Staff complex in Belgrade. The addendum was sent one week before the fourth court hearing in the “General Staff” case, with UAS highlighting the special circumstances surrounding the trial.

We are publishing the UAS letter in full:

“Dear Mr. Kushner, the fourth hearing in the ‘Trump Belgrade’ court case will take place in one week, during which key witnesses are scheduled to testify. Your company’s decision, announced on December 15, to withdraw its application appeared to us to be a wise business judgment.

This trial is, to our knowledge, the first court proceeding concerning the business interests of your family in Europe. Alongside three other officials, the current Minister of Culture Nikola Selaković is also in the dock. And this is unprecedented: nothing similar has ever happened in our country.

In these exceptional circumstances, and in the spirit of our previous letter (dated November 18, 2025), we consider it our professional duty to contact you again.

As the leading association of professionals, experts and scholars in the field of architecture in our country, we advocate for this kind of transparency. We believe that all investors, including those who have previously considered investing, deserve this level of commitment and thoroughness. We also believe that it is a necessary prerequisite for investors to ensure that their projects comply with the rule of law.

Your company’s withdrawal was presented as an act of ‘respect for the people of Serbia,’ but the question of the project’s consequences is far from resolved. In our previous letter, we expressed professional concern over the obvious misconceptions creating risks related to the General Staff complex and the feasibility of the ‘Trump Hotel Belgrade’ project.

Our assessment was that your project represented, and would have remained, a financial burden for investors. The events that followed have, unfortunately, further confirmed the conclusions of our assessment.

We are at a turning point, both for our country and for your business reputation: we have summarized the most significant events of the past year in five points. For each of them, your advisers can easily find more information online.

Public threats following your withdrawal: Immediately after your withdrawal was announced, the President of Serbia personally threatened retaliation against those he believed had caused the project to fail. The president publicly vowed to file criminal charges against ‘everyone in the police, prosecution and other institutions’ who contributed to the project’s failure. Legal experts questioned whether such a blanket threat had any basis in law. In the weeks that followed, the president went further in provoking the judiciary, challenging prosecutors to indict him and claiming that he would pardon everyone charged if they did so. Within days, the president went even further, accusing the Special Prosecutor’s Office alone of sabotaging the agreement. As we explained in our assessment, the project was poorly conceived from the outset, and it is precisely these fatal flaws that should be avoided in the future. We would have preferred to see signs of a willingness to learn, self-correct and improve, directed toward potential foreign investors and partners.

Aggressive and evidence-free defense: Unfortunately, the first three hearings were very poor in terms of substance. Even before the indictment was filed, Minister Selaković behaved aggressively toward the prosecutors. He ignored their summons on November 28 and arrived with TV crews outside the prosecutor’s office on December 2, calling them ‘corrupt blockade supporters,’ among other insults. During the first hearing (February 4), the defendant pleaded not guilty and claimed that there was no legal basis for the indictment. During the second hearing (April 16), Minister Selaković fiercely attacked two key witnesses, accusing them of financial misconduct. During the third hearing (June 10), he alleged that the judicial process was politically motivated and then refused to answer prosecutors’ questions. We will not comment on the legal substance of the case, but we will state what this, in our view, signals to foreign partners. Instead of demonstrating that Serbia is a functional business environment governed by evidence and the rule of law, the defendant’s conduct during the previous court hearings has turned them into a baroque spectacle.

Intimidation of witnesses ahead of the fourth court hearing: Since last April (and the second hearing), Minister Selaković has questioned the credibility of key witnesses. The Higher Public Prosecutor’s Office (VJT) initiated criminal proceedings against key witness Estela Radonjić Živkov on April 25, following a complaint filed by the Ministry of Culture. Several days earlier, members of the Criminal Police Directorate (under the direct control of the Ministry of Internal Affairs) went to the Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments and seized documentation related to the restoration of a monastery. Estela Radonjić Živkov and her colleagues at the Republic Institute resisted unlawful orders to strip the General Staff of its legal protection, and she spoke publicly about it. At the beginning of 2026, messages came to light in which Minister Selaković and his co-defendants disparaged Estela Radonjić Živkov, at one point calling her a ‘staunch Ustasha’ (which is a very serious insult) because of her public statements. On August 25, Radonjić Živkov was summoned for questioning by the Criminal Police Directorate, and she and her legal representatives publicly expressed concern that she could be arrested before September 21. Major professional organizations in the fields of cultural heritage and architecture, including ours, have expressed support for Estela Radonjić Živkov and pointed to what they consider a strategy of witness intimidation ahead of the court hearing scheduled for September 21. This situation further exacerbates the issue described above: aggressive defense in court is one thing, but the fact that the ministry to which the main defendant belongs is filing a complaint against a key witness, in a case that appears to be entirely fabricated, in our view further damages Serbia’s reputation as a safe business environment.

Weakening and intimidation of the judiciary and cultural institutions: In the months following your withdrawal, the pressure shifted from individuals to institutions. A package of judicial reforms, informally known as the ‘Mrdić Laws,’ was swiftly adopted by parliament in January 2026 and restructured the very prosecutorial body that was investigating the General Staff case, prompting formal criticism from the European Commission over undermining judicial independence. The arts and cultural community, whose members were key to resisting the unfortunate illegality of your project, has faced increasing intimidation and repression in recent years, particularly within official institutions.

Fears that the Republic Institute for the Protection of Cultural Monuments will be further weakened, for example through budget cuts, are growing this year. This is not an environment in which the state responsibly changes course, but rather an environment in which the state punishes those who protected the law and tried to prevent obvious mistakes from the very beginning.

A project that remains highly unpopular and a court hearing amid a key election race: Over the past year, public opinion in Serbia has not shifted in favor of this project. A poll conducted in December 2025 showed that nearly two-thirds of respondents opposed the plan, even before the withdrawal of ‘Affinity Partners,’ and opposition has only strengthened since then. Student and civic groups are actively organizing further actions ahead of the court hearing scheduled for September 21. In addition, the hearing will take place amid a key election race. After nearly two years of protests, the incumbent president has called early elections for October 25. At the time of writing, the main opposition force against the ruling party will be the ‘Students’ List,’ consisting of 250 candidates selected by the student movement. They will run on a comprehensive program in which anti-corruption measures occupy a central place. Polls show that these candidates could win a majority in parliament. The very movement that led the civic resistance to the demolition of the General Staff building, as well as to your project, could soon form a government. Immediately after your withdrawal, some voices close to the current authorities mentioned on television that you might reconsider your decision and ‘come back.’ Nevertheless, it is clear that there is no room to consider a new offer for the same project (which, as we explained in our previous letter, should never have been considered in the first place).

As we emphasized last year, Mr. Kushner, Serbia and the Balkans in general are rich in excellent locations where projects can be developed safely, in compliance with established procedures and with a focus on the sustainable future of our peoples. The mere fact that the ‘Trump Belgrade’ project was considered in the context of the General Staff site made no sense, either from a legal or technical standpoint. It should never have happened in the first place.

All parties involved, including foreign partners and investors, have an obligation to devote maximum attention to the due diligence process, and all of them deserve transparency and an operationally safe environment.

We consider this a prerequisite for any form of healthy business relationship based on respect for human rights, as well as domestic and international laws.

Sincerely, Association of Architects of Serbia,” the UAS letter states.