Reporter to KJP: Why Was Britney Griner Swapped for Viktor Bout While American Teacher Marc Fogel — Also Jailed in Russia for Marijuana — Remained Detained? KJP Deflects

On 12/8/2022, following the Biden administration’s announcement of a prisoner swap that freed WNBA star Brittney Griner in exchange for Russian arms dealer Viktor Bout, a reporter asked White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre why the deal hadn’t included Marc Fogel — an American teacher also imprisoned in Russia on marijuana charges. “Have there been any similar efforts regarding American Mark Fogel, who was also in Russia, also arrested on marijuana charges? How is his case different? Or why is the actions for Mark Fogel different than these?” the reporter asked. KJP offered a generic statement about U.S. citizen responsibility, deflected specifics to the State Department, and claimed “every case is different” without explaining what was different about Fogel’s case. When pressed directly about the difference from Griner’s case, KJP said “No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that sometimes we’re not able to talk about that particular individual.”

The Marc Fogel Case

Marc Fogel was an American teacher who had been working at the Anglo-American School of Moscow when he was arrested at a Moscow airport in August 2021. Russian authorities had found approximately 17 grams of medical marijuana in his luggage. Fogel maintained that the marijuana was legally prescribed for chronic back pain in the United States, where medical marijuana was legal in many states.

Despite the medical context, Fogel was charged with drug smuggling — the same charge Brittney Griner would face months later. In June 2022, Fogel was sentenced to 14 years in a Russian penal colony for drug smuggling. The sentence was longer than Griner’s nine-year sentence.

The Fogel case had significant similarities to Griner’s case:

Same country — Both arrested in Russia Same charge — Both convicted of drug trafficking Same substance — Both cases involved marijuana products Same period — Both arrests during 2021-2022 Russia crisis Similar punishment — Harsh sentences for what would be minor offenses in U.S.

But the cases had received dramatically different attention and intervention. Griner’s case had been a national priority with extensive administration engagement. Fogel’s case had received far less attention and no apparent high-level administration focus.

The Swap for Viktor Bout

The December 2022 swap that freed Griner involved Russia receiving Viktor Bout — the notorious “Merchant of Death” arms dealer who was serving a 25-year sentence in U.S. federal prison. Bout had been convicted of:

Arms trafficking — Including to terrorist organizations Conspiracy to kill Americans — Based on sting operation targeting U.S. law enforcement Supplying weapons globally — To various conflict zones and terrorist groups

The exchange was politically controversial. Many argued it was disproportionate — a violent arms dealer for a WNBA basketball player. Others argued that bringing home wrongfully detained Americans was worth significant costs. The administration had defended the swap as the only deal Russia would accept.

The Reporter’s Question

The reporter’s question cut directly to the fairness issue. “Have there been any similar efforts regarding American Mark Fogel, who was also in Russia, also arrested on marijuana charges? How is his case different? Or why is the actions for Mark Fogel different than these?” the reporter asked.

The question raised genuine concerns:

Equal treatment of Americans — Should similarly-situated Americans receive similar administration attention?

Resource allocation — Why did Griner get extensive resources while Fogel received less?

Political prioritization — Was media profile determining administration response?

Family fairness — How were different families being treated?

The Fogel family had been public about their frustration with the limited administration engagement on Marc’s case. Fogel’s wife Jane had been pleading for U.S. government action since his arrest. The contrast between the Fogel family’s struggles for attention and the Griner family’s direct connection to the White House was stark.

”We Take Seriously Our Responsibility”

KJP’s opening was generic. “So we take seriously our responsibility to assist U.S. citizens,” KJP said.

The statement was true but uninformative. Of course the U.S. government takes seriously its responsibility to citizens abroad — that was an abstract obligation that applied equally to all detained Americans. The statement didn’t address why this responsibility had produced such different outcomes for Fogel and Griner.

The generic framing also avoided the specific question. The reporter hadn’t asked whether the U.S. government took its responsibility seriously. The reporter had asked why specific responses had differed. A generic statement about responsibility didn’t answer a specific question about differential treatment.

”Refer You to the State Department”

KJP deflected specifics. “Any specifics on Mark Fogel or any others, I would refer you to the State Department for additional information on those specific cases,” KJP said.

The State Department deferral was procedurally standard — the State Department handled consular issues for detained Americans. But the deferral was substantively inadequate.

The reporter hadn’t asked about consular specifics. The reporter had asked about differential political attention and administration engagement. These were matters where the White House had direct role:

Presidential engagement — Biden had been personally involved in the Griner negotiations White House communications — Public statements had been extensive for Griner Policy decisions — Whether to pursue specific swaps was a White House-level decision Resource allocation — Administration priorities were set at the top

By deferring to State Department, KJP was avoiding White House responsibility for the specific political choices the reporter was asking about. These choices weren’t consular issues — they were presidential-level decisions about how to engage with different cases.

”Every Case Is Different”

KJP offered a meta-statement. “There are, every case is different,” KJP said.

The “every case is different” framing was factually true but rhetorically evasive. Of course individual cases have specific characteristics. But the reporter was asking about the specific ways these cases were different. Just asserting that cases differ without explaining how didn’t answer the question.

The response also worked as preemptive defense. By establishing that cases are different in general, KJP could later justify different treatments as reflecting specific case factors — even without identifying those specific factors. This was circular reasoning: cases are treated differently because cases are different, without identifying the actual distinctions.

The Direct Challenge

The reporter pressed directly on the comparison. “Do you see a difference between Griner’s case and Fogel’s case?” the reporter asked.

This was a yes-or-no question. Either the administration saw a meaningful difference between the cases or it didn’t. If yes, what was the difference? If no, why was the treatment different?

The question was particularly pointed because the surface similarities were so strong. Two Americans. Same country. Same charge. Same substance. The natural expectation was equal treatment. The different treatment required explanation.

The Confusing Response

KJP’s response was contradictory. “No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that sometimes we’re not able to talk about that particular individual,” KJP said.

The response was hard to parse. “No, that’s not what I’m saying” seemed to deny that the cases were different. But “we’re not able to talk about that particular individual” suggested there was case-specific information that couldn’t be shared.

The combined effect was:

Not confirming a difference — Wouldn’t say the cases were legally or factually different.
Not denying a difference — The deflection pattern suggested there was something different.
Not explaining anything — No actual information was provided.
Mentioning confidentiality — Which was unusual for an administration typically willing to discuss Griner openly.

The “sometimes we’re not able to talk about that particular individual” was notably odd. The administration had been extremely public about Griner’s case. If Fogel’s case required confidentiality that Griner’s hadn’t, that was itself a difference the reporter was asking about.

The Political Asymmetry

The Griner-Fogel comparison highlighted a political asymmetry in how the administration handled detained Americans. The apparent factors that determined administration attention included:

Media profile — Griner was a famous athlete; Fogel was an unknown teacher.

Identity politics — Griner was a Black gay woman; Fogel was a white straight man.

Advocacy networks — Griner had celebrities and sports organizations advocating for her; Fogel had his family.

Political constituencies — Different voter blocs advocated for different cases.

Media coverage — Griner’s case received extensive coverage; Fogel’s case didn’t.

These factors shouldn’t have determined consular assistance priority. A detained American should receive attention based on need and circumstances, not on fame or political constituency. But the practical reality was that more politically salient cases received more attention.

The Biden administration had made identity politics a stated priority in many decisions. Critics argued that the Griner-Fogel disparity showed this prioritization in operation — with the politically-connected case getting comprehensive response while the less politically-connected case got bureaucratic handling.

The Eventual Resolution

Marc Fogel remained detained in Russia until February 2025, more than two years after this exchange. His release was eventually negotiated under the second Trump administration, in a deal that did not involve the same extensive engagement the Biden administration had used for Griner.

The extended imprisonment demonstrated that the administration had, in fact, treated the cases differently for a sustained period. Whatever was different about Fogel’s case — something KJP couldn’t or wouldn’t explain — had resulted in years of additional imprisonment for a similarly-situated American.

The administration’s public positioning on this differential treatment remained opaque throughout the period. Reporters asked periodically. Family members pleaded publicly. But the specific explanation for why Fogel received less urgent treatment than Griner was never offered by administration officials.

Key Takeaways

Following the Griner-for-Bout prisoner swap, a reporter asked KJP why Marc Fogel — an American teacher also imprisoned in Russia on marijuana charges — hadn’t received similar administration effort.
KJP offered generic statements about U.S. citizen responsibility and deferred specifics to the State Department.
She claimed “every case is different” without explaining how Fogel’s case was different.
When pressed on whether the cases differed, KJP said “No, that’s not what I’m saying” while also suggesting confidentiality prevented discussion.
Marc Fogel remained detained in Russia until February 2025 — more than two years later — demonstrating the administration did treat the cases differently without providing a public explanation.

Transcript Highlights

The following is transcribed from the video audio (unverified — AI-generated from audio).

I just wanted to ask, have there been any similar efforts regarding American Mark Fogel, who was also in Russia, also arrested on marijuana charges?
How is his case different? Or why is the actions for Mark Fogel different than these?
We take seriously our responsibility to assist U.S. citizens.
Any specifics on Mark Fogel or any others, I would refer you to the State Department for additional information.
Do you see a difference between Griner’s case and Fogel’s case?
No, that’s not what I’m saying. I’m saying that sometimes we’re not able to talk about that particular individual.

Full transcript: 110 words transcribed via Whisper AI.