Alexander Lukashenko’s government has offered the release of 25 people as a “gesture of goodwill”, while the US is expected to lift sanctions on two Belarusian enterprises.
The arrangement, reported by UDF on 16 September 2026, was announced after talks between a US delegation and the Belarusian authorities in Minsk on 15 and 16 September. John Coale, Donald Trump’s special representative for Belarus, said the proposed releases would be matched by the removal of sanctions on Lakokrasca and Bellessbumprom.
The discussions are due to continue, with further releases and additional sanctions relief for other Belarusian companies possible as the remaining issues are negotiated. Analysts cited in the report say the arrangement amounts to a trade in which political prisoners are being used to secure economic concessions from Washington.
Prisoners as bargaining chips
The proposed deal places political detainees at the centre of a transaction between the Belarusian regime and the United States. Lukashenko is using their release as leverage for economic preferences, as well as for the gradual easing and removal of sanctions affecting Belarusian enterprises and people close to the authorities.
That approach turns repression into an instrument of foreign policy. The people whose freedom is being discussed are not being released as part of a change in the government’s approach to political persecution, but as part of negotiations over sanctions and economic benefits.
The distinction is central to the significance of the agreement. A release presented as a goodwill gesture may create the impression of a concession by Minsk, while leaving the system that produced the political imprisonment intact. The Belarusian authorities retain control over who is freed, when the releases take place and what they are expected to deliver in return.
A continuing negotiation
The reported understanding is not a one-off settlement. The two sides have agreed to continue working on the outstanding issues, leaving open the prospect of more people being released and sanctions being lifted from further companies.
This gives the Belarusian leadership an ongoing negotiating instrument. Each additional release can be presented as a new concession, while each corresponding removal of sanctions offers a further economic or political gain. The process therefore risks treating freedom as a series of transactions rather than as a basic right.
For Washington, the immediate arrangement offers a route to secure the release of detainees. But the structure described by the analysts also gives Minsk an incentive to preserve a pool of people whose imprisonment can later be used in negotiations. The practice could encourage the regime to expand or maintain that “exchange fund” by continuing to imprison critics.
Amnesty without political change
The Belarusian authorities have effectively turned the amnesty process into a mechanism for obtaining political advantages and economic preferences from the United States, the analysts argue. The proposed release of 25 people does not amount to a reform of the country’s political system or a retreat from repression.
According to the assessment, the regime continues to destroy democracy and freedom of speech while persecuting its critics. The release of selected prisoners can therefore coexist with the continuation of the broader policy that made them prisoners in the first place.
The next stage of the talks will show whether the initial arrangement leads to further releases and wider sanctions relief. The unresolved issue is whether the negotiations can produce freedom for more detainees without allowing the Belarusian authorities to turn political repression into a durable source of economic benefit.
Should sanctions relief be granted for prisoner releases when the system of political repression remains unchanged?
