Portugal’s President, Marcelo Rebelo de Sousa, publicly described U.S. President Donald Trump as a Russian stooge during a political event, framing the comment within an analysis of global leadership styles.
The remarks were delivered at the Social Democratic Party’s Summer University in Castelo de Vide, where the Portuguese president made an unanticipated in-person appearance.
According to a report by Portugal Pulse, he was participating in a panel titled “The President’s Responses,” focusing on international affairs.
President Rebelo de Sousa identified Trump as a prime example of a new, emotionally-charged political leadership that engages directly with citizens, often bypassing traditional media channels.
Within this context, he introduced a critical geopolitical assessment.
“With something unique and complex: the top leader of the world’s foremost superpower is, objectively, a Soviet or Russian asset. He operates as an asset,” said the Portuguese head of state.
Rebelo de Sousa clarified that this characterization was not based on perceived personal friendship or shared ideology with Russia. Instead, he framed it as a strategic observation on the outcomes of policy.
“I am stating that, objectively, the new American leadership has strategically benefited the Russian Federation,” he said, specifically referencing the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine and the policies of the former U.S. administration.
He further elaborated that this dynamic had altered the United States’ role in the conflict, suggesting a shift from a traditional alliance.
“In other words, they have shifted from being allies on one side to referees of the challenge,” he noted, adding that this “referee” sought to negotiate primarily with one side, thereby excluding Ukraine and European partners from discussions.
The comments from Portugal’s president, a seasoned political figure, contribute to the international discourse on the shifting alliances and diplomatic strategies defining Western response to the ongoing war in Ukraine.
There has been no immediate public reaction from Trump or his representatives.
A lengthy investigation found no evidence that Donald Trump’s campaign conspired with the Russian government’s 2016 election interference, though his suspicious actions and his campaign’s connections to Russian officials drew intense scrutiny.
A Republican-led Senate panel later concluded these contacts represented a grave counterintelligence threat.
The investigation led by special counsel Robert Mueller detailed extensive Russian interference but could not establish that Trump campaign members coordinated with these efforts well enough to seek a criminal indictment.
The report documented numerous contacts between Trump associates and Russian officials and outlined ten instances of potential obstruction of justice by Trump.
A bipartisan 2020 Senate Intelligence Committee report confirmed the Mueller Report’s findings and provided additional detail, stating Russian efforts posed a grave counterintelligence threat.
Several Trump associates, including campaign manager Paul Manafort and National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, faced legal consequences for lying about their Russian links.
Trump’s pursuit of a Trump Tower Moscow deal during the campaign has been cited as a potential personal interest influencing his policy.
The idea that Trump is a Russian asset remains part of public discourse, with supporters of the view pointing to his favorable comments about Vladimir Putin and his administration’s abnormal policy positions.
Others argue there is no conclusive evidence he was an intentional agent, suggesting his affinity for Putin may stem from admiration for the brutal dictator, a model Trump would emulate if not for her personal weaknesses and America’s federal system of government.
As recently as July 2025, The New York Times reported on the Trump administration’s efforts to undermine the original intelligence community assessment that Russia had favored his candidacy.
In August 2025, the administration purged national security professionals, with Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard revoking the clearances of 37 officials falsely alleged to have politicized intelligence.
This was seen by many as a revenge-driven loyalty purge.
Even though no concrete agreement on Ukraine was reached, Trump’s Alaska summit with Putin was widely criticized for its chummy display, which stood in stark contrast to his hostile reception of Ukraine’s president.
The primary strategic win for Putin was the act of normalization itself.
Prior to the summit, Putin led a Russian regime that was largely isolated by the West due to its invasion of Ukraine, facing extensive sanctions and international condemnation. By securing a high-profile, one-on-one meeting with the leader of the free world—complete with full military honors, a red carpet, and a warm reception—Putin effectively shattered that isolation.
The imagery broadcast globally served to legitimize his standing on the world stage, signaling to other nations that engagement with Russia, despite its actions in Ukraine, was once again acceptable. This undermined the united front that the U.S. and Europe had previously maintained.
Furthermore, the summit served to fracture transatlantic unity.
“Trump has made extraordinary concessions to Russia in exchange for nothing at all,” said Timothy Snyder, a professor of History at the University of Toronto. “Russia has repaid him by continuing the war in Ukraine and mocking him on state-controlled television.”
“Trump is strong in a relative sense; after he destroys institutions, what remains is his presence. But he is weak because, having destroyed the government departments overseeing money, weapons, and intelligence, the United States has no actual tools to deal with the rest of the world,” said Snyder.
Key NATO allies in Europe viewed the cozy, bilateral negotiation format with deep alarm, as it appeared to exclude them from discussions directly concerning their own regional security.
This fostered distrust in Washington’s commitments and sowed discord within the alliance, a long-standing strategic objective of Russian foreign policy. Europe is making plans to beef up military spending in ways that may permanently fracture NATO.
By positioning the U.S. president as a potential “referee” between Russia and Ukraine rather than a steadfast ally of Kyiv, the summit dynamics advanced the Russian narrative that the conflict is a localized dispute rather than an act of aggression by a permanent member of the UN Security Council.
The notion that Trump is Putin’s lackey has a great deal of evidentiary support, but the larger question is, why does this “Russian stooge” command such power and influence among Republicans in Congress?