When Misinformation Becomes News

By Samantha Sault, Chairman and Chief Editorial Officer of Qorvis

A Washington PR firm with a long history of representing some of the world’s most controversial governments and companies is discovered to be the covert power center connecting politically exposed oil traders to Washington policymakers. From a conference room a few blocks from the White House and a dingy office towering above Dubai, the firm quietly shapes sanctions policy and global oil markets, cultivating a future Cabinet secretary over more than a decade. A journalist uncovers the conspiracy through years of shoe-leather reporting, even getting himself expelled from a Gulf monarchy in pursuit of the truth. Sounds like the premise of an episode of “Scandal.”

On July 10, Bloomberg journalist Ben Bartenstein contacted Qorvis to inquire about such a story, with two dozen questions and statements about Qorvis’s work “for Iranian tycoon Hossein Shamkhani, Azerbaijani mogul Etibar Eyyub and their associates.”

This is the kind of story that might earn a journalist a book deal, except for one important detail: Qorvis has never worked for Mr. Shamkhani or Mr. Eyyub.

In case you don’t follow global oil markets and sanctions policy as closely as we do, here’s some background: Hossein Shamkhani is an Iranian businessman sanctioned by the United States, United Kingdom, and European Union in 2025 for allegedly operating one of the world’s largest networks trading Iranian and Russian oil. Etibar Eyyub is an Azerbaijani oil trader who left Coral Energy in 2022, moved to Russia, and has since been the subject of sanctions and media investigations in Europe. They are among the most scrutinized figures in the global oil trade, at a time when governments around the world are trying to curb Russian and Iranian oil revenues.

The premise of Mr. Bartenstein’s inquiry is that Qorvis secretly represented these individuals while failing to make required disclosures, and that we are the center of a powerful “network” that somehow sets oil prices and sanctions policy in between hosting splashy parties (attended by many Bloomberg journalists). We’d like to think we’re that powerful. We’re not.

We are publishing the inquiry and my response below so that the public can have the full picture and decide for themselves.

But how would a journalist from Bloomberg – arguably one of the most fastidious and unbiased publications in the world – come to this conclusion?

Misinformation.

This story didn’t begin with Bloomberg. In fact, we believe that Bloomberg is a victim of the same misinformation ecosystem that’s targeting Qorvis and many of our clients.

Over the last decade, we’ve seen a developing trend of numerous websites, blogs, and social media accounts publishing allegations about competitors and companies, including Qorvis, operating in the global commodities sector. These platforms – which call themselves “news sites” – are often controlled by intelligence agencies or corporate interests and based in emerging economies and conflict zones far removed from the United States and the issues they’re covering.

They’re not news sites at all. Rather than conducting original reporting, they recycle the same claims (sometimes the same exact stories) while conflating entirely separate companies, individuals, and business relationships. Publicly disclosed and lawful work for one company becomes supposed evidence of secretly representing another based on a tenuous or long-forgotten connection. Friends and lovers become business associates. Qorvis has been targeted by these sites, alongside many other companies and individuals that have been clients, and many more that have not.

In December 2024, Mr. Bartenstein published a story about Qorvis’s work that raised questions about our disclosure practices. Qorvis, through legal counsel, contacted Bloomberg to raise concerns with that reporting. The latest inquiry goes much further, asserting as fact that Qorvis represented individuals who have never been clients, and that we did not file required disclosures.

Unfortunately, the latest inaccuracies were not contained to obscure corners of the internet. Over the past few days, Mr. Bartenstein has circulated these allegations widely: to the White House and State Department, to clients, to current and former employees, including interns and people who worked at Qorvis more than a decade ago and have no idea what work we do today. (For what it’s worth, Mr. Bartenstein did not contact me personally, even though I am the chairman of the company.)

We have no problem fielding uncomfortable questions from journalists. It’s what we do every day for clients.

As our 25-year history of public filings and news stories demonstrates, we also have no problem working for clients facing serious legal, political, or reputational challenges. Saudi Arabia after 9/11 – and after Khashoggi. Massey Energy after 29 people died in a mine explosion in West Virginia, investors in the Macondo well after Deepwater Horizon, and Coral Energy’s MBO to become 2Rivers in 2024. The governments of China, Bahrain, Equatorial Guinea. The Union of Oil and Gas Industrialists of Russia, which counts Russian gas company Novatek among its members, during the Russia-Ukraine conflict. We’ve filed LDA and FARA when required, and out of an abundance of caution, often when not – when we aren’t even engaging in the types of activities on behalf of foreign principals that generally trigger FARA.

If Qorvis represented Mr. Shamkhani or Mr. Eyyub, we would say so. Mr. Eyyub is not even sanctioned by the United States. Simply representing either individual would not necessarily have triggered FARA, though we might have filed anyway for transparency. And if they were our clients, we’d probably be engaging with Mr. Bartenstein and other commodities journalists about them. We are not.

We don’t know exactly how Mr. Bartenstein’s inquiry developed. But we do know that it repeated many inaccuracies found on those websites. It also contained errors that would have been obvious to anyone familiar with sanctions policy, commodities markets, or our work – such as which government agencies oversee sanctions policy, or what kind of work triggers a FARA filing. (Generally speaking, work for commercial transactions does not.)

These aren’t simply differences of opinion or attempts at “gotcha” moments. They are fabrications, presented as fact, perpetuated by an ecosystem of misinformation.

These false allegations have been amplified and may still be published, despite our on-the-record statements that they are false. We remain confident in our compliance and regulatory disclosure procedures, our trusted partnerships with our real clients, and our relationships with government officials, who know what we did and did not discuss with them.

But this issue extends beyond one journalist at one publication. Misinformation is a fungus, and the damage it causes reaches far beyond companies and individuals to public trust. If even professional journalists can be taken in by it, where does that leave the rest of us?

Qorvis has weathered reputational challenges of this magnitude and greater for governments, companies, high-profile individuals, and even our own firm. We know how to respond to difficult facts. Responding to narratives built on complete fabrications is something else entirely, and something all of us in public relations and reputation management are grappling with in real time, with far-reaching implications. Business adversaries now publish inflammatory, false, and AI-generated content designed to discredit competitors, or worse. I’ve seen clients in tears not because of what fabrications might mean for their business, but because of what it might mean for the safety of their spouses and children.

Transparency, like what we’re doing here, is the first step. But misinformation and an online economy driven by clicks are eroding accountability and trust.

Lately in Washington, I’ve been hearing more friends opine about how truth is stranger than fiction: “This is crazier than Scandal.” “You can’t make this stuff up.”

But these days, we all have to worry that you can.

Bloomberg Inquiry and Qorvis Response, 7-10-26

The below is the inquiry we received from Ben Bartenstein, with the responses that I sent back to him. Mr. Bartenstein’s text is in black, and Qorvis’s text is in red.

Hi team,

We’re reporting a story about Washington-based lobbying firm Qorvis’s work for several clients in the oil trading space, and we’ve developed information that the company has worked for Iranian tycoon Hossein Shamkhani, Azerbaijani mogul Etibar Eyyub and their associates. Qorvis has not disclosed these relationships under FARA, and we want to explore the implications of the information we’ve obtained with the White House.

Our reporting thus far has produced information that we’d like to present to the White House in this message. Our goal is to ensure fairness and accuracy, so we’d ask that you let us know if you dispute anything we’re proposing to report.

Additionally, we’d be glad to arrange an interview to discuss this further.

Below are the key points that our reporting has produced so far. Please note that I have marked some specific questions with an asterisk (*). However, please also know that if you would like to discuss and offer a comment on any of these points, we’re eager to receive your feedback. We’d ask that you respond by close of business London time on Tuesday, July 14, 2026.

The below is on the record, except where explicitly noted “on background.”

Hossein Shamkhani and Etibar Eyyub are not, and have never been, Qorvis clients. Your information is categorically false.

Qorvis takes our compliance and regulatory obligations very seriously. As our 25-year history of public filings demonstrates, we routinely represent clients facing significant legal, political, and reputational challenges, and make the required disclosures. These are not our clients, and we have no interest in them or their networks.

I’ve addressed your questions in red below.

• Qorvis has since at least 2024 advised Shamkhani, Eyyub and their associates. It has not disclosed its role to US regulators under FARA legislation.
• *Does Qorvis dispute this reporting? Yes, we dispute this reporting. It is 100% inaccurate.
• Qorvis tends to characterize much of its business as communications, compliance and strategy rather than lobbying, according to six sources. This is correct. Qorvis is primarily a communications and strategy firm. We often partner with lobbying and legal firms, and file LDA, FARA, and other disclosures when required.
• Qorvis’s work for Shamkhani, Eyyub and their associates included giving guidance on navigating sanctions risks, responding to US policy actions and engaging with senior officials. This is false. They are not and have never been Qorvis clients.
• Sources said Qorvis’s work on behalf of Shamkhani and Eyyub should have triggered FARA disclosures.
• *Does Qorvis believe its work for Shamkhani and Eyyub has not triggered FARA disclosures? If not, why not? Shamkhani and Eyyub are not and have never been Qorvis clients. 
• In early 2024, Shamkhani sought help from Qorvis executives, who offered him guidance on how to shield his network from US regulators and navigate media scrutiny. Shamkhani is not and has never been a Qorvis client.
• Qorvis also advised Shamkhani associate Ghazi Abualsaud, the CEO of Wellbred, on how to frame his relationship with Shamkhani. On background: In the past, we have advised Wellbred and Ghazi Abualsaud, who is a friend and former colleague of several individuals in the company. Mr. Abualsaud is not sanctioned, and he disputes that he is an associate of Shamkhani.
• The US Treasury Department sanctioned Shamkhani in July 2025 while the DOJ took action in March 2026 against Abualsaud’s firm Wellbred, which it said plays an “important role in the continued financial and operational success of the Shamkhani network.”
• Within days of the DOJ action, Qorvis removed Wellbred’s logo from its website, where it had previously listed the firm as a client. *Why did Qorvis remove Wellbred’s logo from its website in March 2026? On background: We frequently update our website and marketing materials based on emerging issues. Wellbred and Mr. Abualsaud are not sanctioned, but we removed the Wellbred logo as we do not represent them on their litigation efforts (though we would be happy to).
• After the Shamkhani sanctions designation, Qorvis continued to receive payments from entities in his network, including from Wellbred, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter.
• *Does Qorvis dispute this reporting? On background: Wellbred has paid past-due bills. Wellbred and Mr. Abulsaud [sic] are not sanctioned. They dispute that they are part of Shamkhani’s network in their current litigation. We do not represent them in their litigation, but we would be happy to.
• Former OFAC official David Tannenbaum said federal statutes require lobbyists to seek an OFAC license for any work with a sanctioned individual or entity. 
• *Did Qorvis take any steps to seek or obtain an OFAC license related to its work for Shamkhani or entities in his network after his sanctions designation? Qorvis has never worked for Shamkhani.
• *Does Qorvis believe it was not obligated to seek or obtain an OFAC license for work with Shamkhani or entities in his network after his sanctions designation? If not, why not?  Qorvis has never worked for Shamkhani.
• Qorvis has often received payment from intermediaries and sub-contractors rather than directly from sensitive clients, according to people with direct knowledge of the matter. A former DOJ official said efforts to conceal payments and client relationships pose an “ongoing enforcement challenge.” 
• *Does Qorvis dispute this reporting? Your accusation is actively misleading. As an example, Qorvis frequently represents interest groups or trade associations that represent many companies.
• In mid-March 2026, Qorvis executives engaged with senior Trump advisers on oil sanctions policy, noting how a temporary relaxation of some restrictions could support market stability. On background: Qorvis is frequently solicited by members of the administration on mechanisms to maintain market stability.
• *Did Shamkhani or Eyyub or both ask or direct Qorvis to seek this engagement with senior Trump advisers? No.
• Did Qorvis representatives discuss the engagement beforehand or afterward with Shamkhani or Eyyub or their representatives? No.
• Did Qorvis inform the senior Trump advisers it engaged with that it had working relationships with Shamkhani and Eyyub? Qorvis does not have and has never had working relationships with Shamkhani or Eyyub.
• Qorvis advised Eyyub on how to leverage his market intelligence on a rival trader to Western officials in an effort to avoid repercussions for himself. This is false. Qorvis has never advised or communicated with Eyyub. 
• Qorvis’s annual White House Correspondents’ Dinner party is well attended by influential MAGA media figures, Congressional contacts and Trump world insiders. Clients, including Novatek deputy chairman Denis Solovyov, have also attended. True. In addition to MAGA media, mainstream media – including many Bloomberg journalists – frequently attend Qorvis parties.
• The Qorvis leadership includes husband and wife Matt Lauer and Samantha Sault. Lauer got his start in South Carolina politics while Sault is a former journalist with experience in the fashion industry. This is mostly true; Lauer actually got his start in North Carolina politics.
• Shortly after the Sept. 11 attacks, the Saudi government hired Qorvis on a reported $14 million-a-year contract. True.
• The Qorvis offices were raided in 2004 by FBI agents who had questions about the firm’s Saudi work. No charges were filed. True.
• Qorvis’s sovereign clients have also included Equatorial Guinea and Pakistan. True.
• Cultivating a relationship with Secretary of State Marco Rubio – whom the firm has engaged with dating back to his Senate days – has been a particular priority for Qorvis given his influence on US sanctions policy. We have never engaged on sanctions with Marco Rubio.
• Qorvis’s influence in Washington is further demonstrated by Qorvis’ managing director Brad Klapper’s role as head of communications for President Trump’s Board of Peace. True; Brad Klapper is managing partner, not managing director.
• *Is Mr. Klapper compensated for his role as head of communications for the Board of Peace? If so, what is the amount of that compensation? On background: I don’t know – it is Mr. Klapper’s personal part-time endeavor.
• Qorvis consultant Tom Sharpe, a British Royal Navy veteran, was instrumental in helping the firm gain entry into RUSI’s maritime sanctions task force in late 2024. The working group brings forward suggestions to the UK government on sanctions policy. True.
• *Have Mr. Sharpe or Qorvis disclosed Qorvis’s work on behalf of Shamkhani and Eyyub to RUSI? If not, why not?  Qorvis has never worked for Shamkhani or Eyyub.

A few additional questions: As a private company, Qorvis does not publicly disclose information about personnel or revenue beyond what is required by law for filings.

• What is the latest Qorvis headcount? (PitchBook says there are almost 100 employees.)  
• What is Qorvis’s annual revenue? (Former employees say that – as with some industry rivals – the total dwarfs the figures disclosed under FARA and the Lobbying Disclosure Act.)