Russia has intensified measures against European companies in response to Europe's support for Ukraine, while largely sparing American firms amid ongoing economic negotiations between Moscow and Washington. According to a Reuters analysis, only three of the 20 foreign companies placed under temporary state administration by Vladimir Putin since Donald Trump returned to the White House have ties to the United States.
The Kremlin has acknowledged that the country of origin of a company influenced the decisions of the Russian authorities. Dmitri Peskov, the Kremlin's spokesperson, confirmed this link, offering a rare public admission of what the pattern of seizures had already suggested to outside observers.
The figures point to a deliberate distinction in Moscow's treatment of Western businesses. European firms, whose governments have backed Kyiv and imposed sanctions on Russia, have borne the brunt of the temporary administration orders. American companies, by contrast, have been largely left untouched as Moscow and Washington pursue economic talks.
Temporary state administration allows Russian authorities to take control of a company's management without formally expropriating it. The mechanism has been used against foreign assets since the early months of the war in Ukraine, but the pace of such decisions has drawn renewed attention since Trump's return to office reshaped the diplomatic landscape.
The Reuters analysis covers the period since Trump's inauguration and identifies 20 foreign companies placed under temporary administration. The small number of US-linked firms among them stands in contrast to the larger share of European businesses affected, reinforcing the impression that the Kremlin is calibrating its economic retaliation according to political alignment.
Peskov's comments suggest that this calibration is not accidental. By acknowledging that a company's country of origin played a role, the Kremlin has effectively confirmed that the temporary administration mechanism functions in part as a political instrument, directed at governments whose policies Moscow opposes.
The distinction carries consequences for European businesses still operating in Russia or holding assets there. For executives in Berlin, Paris and other European capitals, the analysis offers little reassurance: their companies appear more exposed than American competitors, even when their operations are comparable.
For Washington, the pattern may serve as leverage in the economic negotiations now under way with Moscow. The relative restraint shown toward US firms could be read as a gesture of goodwill, or as an incentive for American companies to expand their presence in Russia at a moment when European rivals are being pushed out.
Either interpretation points to the same conclusion: the treatment of foreign companies in Russia is no longer a purely legal or commercial matter. It has become part of a broader geopolitical strategy in which business assets are weighed according to the foreign policy of the governments behind them.
The Kremlin has not indicated how many further companies might be placed under temporary administration, nor whether the balance between European and American firms will shift as negotiations with Washington develop. For now, the Reuters findings and Peskov's acknowledgment offer the clearest picture yet of how Moscow is drawing that line.