Vučić personally urged officials to strip Belgrade landmark of heritage protection
Serbian president Aleksandar Vučić personally pressed heritage officials to remove legal protections from Belgrade’s historic General Staff building, according to people familiar with a 2024 meeting and documents reviewed by the Guardian. The site was later proposed for a $500m Trump-linked hotel and residential tower; the revelation raises questions about the president’s involvement in a scheme that has led to criminal charges against senior officials.
The building, a former Yugoslav defence ministry and symbol of resistance to the Nazis, was damaged by Nato bombing in 1999 and had its protected status reaffirmed by Vučić in 2016. Under Serbian law, officials could not simply remove that status without an expert assessment. Donald Trump Jr and Jared Kushner’s representatives deny involvement in removing the protections and reject claims the project was pay-to-play; Kushner’s company said last December that the project would not proceed “at this time”. Vučić did not respond to requests for comment, and a hearing that could shed light on his role is due after the 25 October election.
- Vučić reportedly urged officials to strip protections from a Belgrade landmark.
- The site was proposed for a $500m Trump-linked development.
- Senior Serbian officials face abuse-of-office charges.
New here? Start with this
Belgrade’s General Staff building was built as Yugoslavia’s defence ministry and later became a symbol of resistance to Nazi occupation. Nato bombing damaged it during the 1999 Kosovo war. Serbia gave the site legal heritage protection, which is intended to preserve buildings considered historically important.
Aleksandar Vučić has been Serbia’s president since 2017 and was prime minister before that. Heritage officials are responsible for assessing protected sites under Serbian law, while the proposed development involved representatives linked to Donald Trump’s family. The building’s future matters because it sits at the intersection of Serbia’s history, rules for protecting heritage and a major property project.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters of removing the protection could argue that the war-damaged site may be put to productive use through redevelopment, bringing investment, jobs and a prominent new project to Belgrade. They might also say heritage rules should allow change where an expert assessment finds preservation is not justified, provided the process is lawful and transparent.
The case against
Opponents could argue that the building’s historical significance—as a former defence ministry, a symbol of resistance to Nazism and a scar of the 1999 bombing—makes its protection a matter of public memory, not just development potential. They may also see presidential pressure to remove safeguards for a project linked to politically connected investors as a threat to independent heritage review and public trust, particularly amid criminal charges against senior officials.
Read the full article at the source →
Originally published by The Guardian as “Revealed: Serbian ruler’s secret role in ‘illegal’ effort to help Trump business”.