Jared Kushner: Empire of Influence and Shadow Power

Rubric: Geopolitics
Format: Investigative Special Report
Author: Sinisa Brkic (sb)
Publication Date: November 12, 2026

He negotiates with Vladimir Putin, helps shape the future of Gaza, and controls an investment firm backed by billions of dollars in foreign capital. Jared Kushner has become one of the most influential figures in American foreign policy without occupying a conventional senior government office. His position between presidential power, private investment, and international diplomacy has triggered congressional investigations and a federal lawsuit, raising fundamental questions about financial transparency, political accountability, and the boundaries of public authority.

The Man Who Operates Beyond Conventional Government

On November 12, 2026, Jared Kushner and American special envoy Steve Witkoff arrived in Moscow for talks with Russian President Vladimir Putin. Their visit followed two days of American-mediated negotiations in Abu Dhabi, where Russian and Ukrainian representatives reached an understanding on a major prisoner exchange but failed to resolve their central disagreements over territory and security guarantees. Kushner's presence in Moscow reflects an extraordinary expansion of his diplomatic responsibilities. Once primarily associated with Middle East negotiations, Donald Trump's son-in-law now participates in discussions that could influence the future of Ukraine, Russia's relationship with the West, and Europe's security architecture. His position is unusual because his authority rests largely on presidential confidence rather than a conventional diplomatic appointment. Kushner has not undergone Senate confirmation for his current activities, while the White House maintains that he is a private citizen providing voluntary assistance at the president's request. Such arrangements are not automatically unlawful. American presidents have long relied on personal advisers and informal intermediaries in sensitive diplomatic situations, but Kushner's extensive responsibilities have raised questions about the legal framework governing his work. Those questions become more consequential when his diplomatic influence is considered alongside his private financial interests. Kushner owns Affinity Partners, an international investment firm whose financial relationships include sovereign wealth institutions associated with Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. These governments have substantial political and economic interests in Washington's decisions concerning the Middle East. The overlap between Kushner's public activities and private business relationships is documented, although the available evidence does not establish that his financial interests have improperly determined American diplomatic policy.

The Saudi $2 Billion Investment

The foundation of Kushner's investment business was established shortly after he left the White House in January 2021. His newly formed firm, Affinity Partners, secured a $2 billion commitment from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund, an institution closely associated with Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The transaction immediately attracted attention because Kushner had maintained extensive diplomatic relations with Saudi leadership during Trump's first administration. His responsibilities included major elements of American Middle East policy, giving him direct access to the crown prince and other influential regional figures. Reporting based on internal Saudi investment records revealed that the fund's advisers had questioned the proposed commitment. Their reservations reportedly concerned Affinity's limited institutional history, operational capabilities, and the financial merits of investing such a substantial amount with a newly established manager. The investment was nevertheless approved. That decision established a major commercial relationship between Kushner's business and a foreign government whose senior leadership he had dealt with extensively during his public service. The circumstances do not prove that Saudi Arabia rewarded Kushner for diplomatic favors. No judicial finding or independently established evidence demonstrates that the investment constituted an unlawful exchange of money for government action. Nevertheless, the transaction created an obvious subject for congressional scrutiny. Lawmakers questioned whether foreign sovereign investments in businesses controlled by politically connected individuals could become mechanisms for cultivating influence in Washington.

Following the Money

The financial arrangements disclosed during congressional investigations provide a more precise understanding of Affinity's economic structure. In September 2024, Senator Ron Wyden, then chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, released findings concerning management fees, foreign investors, and the firm's investment performance. According to information provided to committee investigators, Affinity charged Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund an annual management fee of 1.25 percent on its $2 billion commitment. Under that arrangement, the management fee corresponded to approximately $25 million annually, subject to the applicable contractual terms. The committee reported that Affinity had received or was entitled to approximately $157 million in fees from foreign clients during the period examined. Of that amount, approximately $87 million was attributable to the Saudi government. These figures describe revenue generated by an investment management business. They do not represent Kushner's personal income, nor can they be equated with the firm's net profit after operating expenses. Their importance lies in the structure of the commercial relationship. Private investment managers can earn substantial fees for managing committed capital independently of whether particular investments have been sold or profits distributed to investors. The Senate investigation also found that, as of July 2024, Affinity's funds had not distributed investment earnings to clients. That finding applied to a specific historical period and does not establish that the company subsequently failed to produce returns. Indeed, later investment transactions demonstrated that parts of Affinity's portfolio had generated substantial gains. Nevertheless, the earlier fee arrangements illustrate how foreign investment commitments can create significant and continuing revenue for a privately owned investment company.

A Financial Network Across the Gulf

Saudi Arabia was not Affinity's only major source of international capital. Investment institutions connected to Qatar and the United Arab Emirates also provided commitments, expanding the firm's financial relationships across the Persian Gulf. By the end of 2024, Affinity reported approximately $4.8 billion in assets under management, compared with roughly $3 billion a year earlier. Subsequent reporting placed the firm's managed assets above $6 billion by the end of 2025. Assets under management are not equivalent to personal wealth. They describe capital managed through the firm's investment operations and should not be confused with the value of Kushner's personal holdings. Earlier regulatory filings and Senate findings indicated that approximately 99 percent of Affinity's reported capital came from foreign sources during the period examined. That historical figure demonstrates the scale of the firm's international dependence but should not automatically be applied to every later reporting period without updated disclosures. The geographical concentration of the capital is significant because Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates maintain distinct and sometimes competing strategic interests. Their relationships with Washington, Israel, Iran, and one another are central to the diplomacy in which Kushner has participated. Foreign sovereign investment is not inherently improper, and sovereign wealth funds routinely invest in international private equity businesses. The concern arises when substantial commercial relationships coexist with public diplomatic responsibilities involving the same governments or regions. For foreign investors, a well-connected investment manager may offer commercial expertise, political knowledge, and access to regional business opportunities. Those attributes can be legitimate investment considerations, but they also make financial transparency especially important when the manager becomes a participant in government decision-making.

The Israeli Investment Under Scrutiny

A new controversy emerged in October 2026 when a CNN investigation examined Affinity Partners' investment in Phoenix Financial, one of Israel's major financial services institutions. Affinity had acquired a substantial ownership position in Phoenix and became its largest shareholder shortly before Trump's second inauguration. Phoenix operates across insurance, pensions, asset management, and other financial activities. Its extensive investment portfolio includes holdings in companies associated with the production of equipment and technology used by Israel's military. The investigation examined Israeli financial disclosures and identified holdings worth at least $456 million in nine companies linked to military-related production or equipment supply. The companies included Elbit Systems, Israel's largest defense manufacturer, alongside businesses involved in drones, aircraft engines, artillery components, and other military applications. The reported holdings represented an identifiable portion of Phoenix's investment portfolio, not a complete account of every asset managed through the financial institution. They also did not constitute direct ownership positions held by Affinity Partners. That distinction is essential. Affinity owns shares in Phoenix, while Phoenix itself holds investments across a broad range of businesses, including the defense-related companies examined. A shareholder in a diversified financial institution may benefit from its overall performance without directing individual investment decisions. Consequently, the existence of these holdings does not establish that Kushner selected the companies, influenced their military business, or personally directed their investment strategies. CNN reported finding no indication that Kushner's diplomatic activities directly affected the investments it examined. His attorney also rejected suggestions that Kushner's diplomacy influenced the relevant investment decisions or that those investments influenced his diplomatic work. According to the attorney's account, Kushner had not participated in decisions to acquire, retain, or sell the nine identified holdings. He had also never served on Phoenix's board or held a management position within the company. Those statements are central to a fair assessment of the allegations. They limit what can responsibly be concluded about Kushner's personal involvement, even as the financial relationship raises legitimate questions about potential conflicts.

The Phoenix Investment Pays Off

The commercial significance of Phoenix became particularly visible in July 2026. Affinity sold approximately one-quarter of its ownership position for more than $340 million, realizing proceeds representing more than five times the original cost of the shares sold. Following the transaction, Affinity retained approximately 7.4 percent of Phoenix. The remaining stake was valued at more than $1 billion at the time of the sale, preserving a substantial economic interest in the Israeli financial group. The investment demonstrates that Affinity has generated significant gains from at least some of its portfolio holdings. Those proceeds, however, belong to the relevant investment structure and cannot simply be classified as personal earnings received by Kushner. Phoenix's valuation depends on numerous commercial factors, including its operating performance, financial markets, investor expectations, and developments affecting Israel's economy. The available evidence does not demonstrate that Kushner's diplomatic involvement caused the increase in value. Nevertheless, the timing of the ownership relationship deserves examination because Kushner was simultaneously participating in negotiations concerning Israel and Gaza. His firm maintained a valuable financial interest in an institution whose portfolio included companies supplying equipment to the Israeli military. The established concern is therefore one of potential financial conflict rather than proven misconduct. Whether appropriate safeguards exist to address such circumstances is a question separate from whether Kushner personally directed any improper action.

Gaza: From Diplomacy to Reconstruction

Kushner has played a prominent role in American Middle East diplomacy since Trump's first presidency. He was a leading architect of the Abraham Accords, which established normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states and strengthened his relationships with political leaders across the region. After Trump's return to the White House in January 2025, Kushner again became involved in negotiations concerning Israel and Gaza. His responsibilities expanded as the administration pursued ceasefire arrangements and plans for the territory's political and economic future. In January 2026, the White House appointed Kushner to the founding Executive Board of the Board of Peace. The initiative was associated with Trump's Gaza stabilization and reconstruction plans, which included governance arrangements, international coordination, infrastructure development, and investment mobilization. Kushner subsequently presented an ambitious economic vision for Gaza involving housing, major infrastructure, commercial facilities, tourism, and private investment. The proposal reflected his long-standing argument that economic cooperation can help generate political incentives for regional stability. Yet Gaza's future cannot be treated exclusively as an investment proposition. Extensive destruction, mass displacement, humanitarian needs, unresolved governance disputes, and questions of Palestinian political rights make reconstruction profoundly different from conventional commercial development. Decisions about land ownership, housing, compensation, public infrastructure, and political representation will determine whether rebuilding serves the population affected by the war. International investors may contribute capital and expertise, but commercial development cannot substitute for legitimate governance and enforceable protections for residents. Kushner's involvement raises an additional issue because his investment firm maintains extensive economic relationships across the Middle East. The potential involvement of private capital in reconstruction makes transparent rules governing conflicts of interest particularly important. There is no established public evidence that Affinity Partners has obtained Gaza reconstruction contracts through Kushner's diplomatic activities. The absence of such evidence must be recognized, even while the scale of prospective reconstruction financing makes independent oversight a legitimate public concern.

Iran and the Expansion of Diplomatic Influence

Kushner's diplomatic activities have also extended to negotiations concerning Iran. During 2026, he participated in efforts involving Washington, Tehran, and regional governments as the United States sought to address military confrontation and the conditions for potential diplomatic arrangements. These negotiations placed him within another policy environment of considerable importance to Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates. The consequences of conflict with Iran affect regional security, energy production, international shipping, financial markets, and investment across the Gulf. The overlap between Kushner's diplomatic responsibilities and Affinity's international investor base therefore extends beyond Gaza. It encompasses regional issues in which governments connected to his business relationships have major strategic interests. That overlap does not establish that any foreign investor controls his decisions or that particular American positions were adopted for private financial benefit. It does create a legitimate expectation that potential conflicts should be identified, assessed, and addressed through transparent procedures. Kushner has maintained that fundraising activity for Affinity was halted as his volunteer diplomatic responsibilities expanded. In October 2026, he said he had not raised additional funds since Trump's reelection and had ended discussions about further fundraising. A pause in fundraising may reduce one potential area of conflict, but it does not eliminate existing ownership interests or financial relationships. Continuing investments, contractual fee arrangements, and the economic performance of portfolio companies remain relevant when considering the independence of public diplomatic activity.

The Balkan Projects and Political Access

Kushner's commercial interests have also extended to politically sensitive real estate developments in southeastern Europe. In Serbia, a company associated with his development business pursued a major luxury project at the former Yugoslav military headquarters in Belgrade. The complex was damaged during NATO's bombing campaign in 1999 and carries considerable historical and architectural significance. The proposed redevelopment involved plans for hotels, residences, and commercial facilities under an arrangement with Serbian authorities. The project received support from President Aleksandar Vučić's government but encountered opposition from preservation advocates and sections of the Serbian public. Critics questioned the treatment of a historically important site and the process through which redevelopment permissions were granted. The controversy intensified in 2025 as Serbian prosecutors pursued allegations of wrongdoing by officials involved in decisions affecting the buildings' protected cultural status. In December 2025, the developer associated with Kushner withdrew from the project. The allegations involving Serbian officials did not establish wrongdoing by Kushner or his company. Nevertheless, the episode illustrated the difficulties that can arise when politically sensitive public property becomes the subject of major private development. In Albania, a company associated with Kushner received strategic investor status for a proposed luxury tourism project on Sazan Island. Albanian authorities approved the proposal in late 2024, with plans involving an investment estimated at approximately €1.4 billion. The island's former military significance and environmental characteristics made the development particularly sensitive. Concerns were raised about land use, environmental safeguards, and the terms under which strategically important national assets could be developed. Strategic investor status is a recognized mechanism under Albanian investment legislation and does not itself demonstrate preferential or unlawful treatment. The project nevertheless provides another example of commercial activity in which government approvals and public policy decisions can materially affect private investment opportunities.

The Congressional Investigations

American lawmakers began examining Kushner's financial relationships years before his latest diplomatic assignments. In 2022, the House Oversight Committee investigated the circumstances surrounding Saudi Arabia's investment in Affinity Partners and sought information about Kushner's previous diplomatic contacts. Senator Ron Wyden subsequently pursued questions concerning Affinity's management fees, investment performance, and dependence on foreign capital. His investigation produced the financial findings published in September 2024, including details about the firm's fee arrangements. Wyden argued that the combination of substantial foreign capital and political relationships created serious concerns about possible influence and the effectiveness of financial disclosure safeguards. His findings formed part of a broader debate over whether existing laws adequately address financial relationships involving politically connected former officials. In October 2024, Wyden and Representative Jamie Raskin called for an investigation into possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act. Their request represented a political and legal allegation requiring examination, not proof that Kushner had violated the statute. Foreign investment in an American business does not automatically create an obligation to register as a foreign agent. The application of the law depends on the specific relationship, the activities undertaken, and whether those activities meet statutory requirements. Congressional scrutiny continued during Trump's second presidency. Lawmakers raised further questions about Kushner's simultaneous diplomatic responsibilities and private business activities, particularly where negotiations involved governments or sectors connected to Affinity's financial interests. Following the October 2026 investigation into Phoenix Financial, Representative Robert Garcia sought information concerning Affinity's international investments and possible conflicts. These inquiries demonstrated sustained concern among congressional Democrats but did not constitute findings of criminal misconduct.

The Federal Lawsuit Challenging Kushner's Role

On October 14, 2026, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, known as CREW, filed a federal lawsuit challenging Kushner's diplomatic activities. The organization argued that he was exercising significant governmental authority without undergoing the appointment and financial disclosure procedures that it believes federal law requires. The lawsuit raised questions involving the Constitution's Appointments Clause and the Ethics in Government Act. CREW contended that Kushner's role in major international negotiations went beyond informal presidential advice and required greater transparency and formal accountability. These claims concern the legal classification of Kushner's functions and whether the responsibilities he exercises trigger specific constitutional or statutory obligations. They are allegations presented by the plaintiff, not judicial findings that Kushner has violated the law.

Kushner's Attorney Rejects the Allegations

Kushner's attorney, Chad Mizelle, rejected the lawsuit as lacking merit and argued that the plaintiffs did not have legal standing to bring the case. Mizelle stated that both independent ethics counsel and government ethics attorneys had reviewed Kushner's volunteer service and confirmed that the arrangement complied with applicable ethics requirements. According to Mizelle, Kushner receives no government salary or compensation, pays his own expenses, and continues working with legal advisers to ensure compliance. These statements directly challenge CREW's contention that Kushner's role constitutes an unlawful exercise of government authority. The White House has likewise defended the arrangement. Its position is that Kushner remains a private citizen assisting the president voluntarily and that his personal business activities are separate from his diplomatic engagements. White House spokesperson Anna Kelly criticized CREW and described Kushner as an experienced negotiator whose business interests do not influence his diplomatic work. The administration maintains that his involvement reflects a longstanding presidential practice of relying on trusted private intermediaries in sensitive international negotiations. The opposing legal positions reveal the central dispute. CREW argues that the substance and scope of Kushner's responsibilities require formal appointment and disclosure safeguards, while his representatives maintain that the voluntary arrangement is lawful and has already undergone appropriate ethics review. At the time of this report, the lawsuit had not produced a final judicial determination establishing that Kushner's activities violated constitutional or federal statutory requirements. The mere filing of a complaint cannot be treated as proof that the allegations are correct.

The Legal Question Behind Volunteer Diplomacy

The controversy turns partly on the distinction between providing advice to a president and exercising governmental authority. American presidents may consult private individuals, use informal diplomatic intermediaries, and seek assistance from people outside conventional government employment. However, the legal requirements applicable to a particular individual can depend on the actual powers exercised, the nature of the appointment, the duration of service, and the statutory framework governing the responsibilities involved. Volunteer status alone does not necessarily determine whether specific ethics or disclosure laws apply. The Appointments Clause establishes constitutional requirements for the appointment of federal officers, although the precise application of those requirements depends on the legal character of the position. The Ethics in Government Act imposes financial disclosure obligations on specified categories of officials and employees. Whether Kushner's current diplomatic activities fall within those requirements is the central issue raised by the litigation. Resolving it requires more than observing that he is unpaid or that he has not undergone Senate confirmation. It requires an examination of his actual responsibilities, the government's legal basis for the arrangement, and the applicable judicial precedents. The public statements of Kushner's attorney and the White House provide their explanation, while the CREW lawsuit seeks judicial review of the competing interpretation. Neither position should be presented as conclusively established merely because its proponents assert it. The legal significance of the arrangement remains a matter for the courts and the applicable oversight institutions to determine.

The Argument in Kushner's Defense

The controversy surrounding Kushner's commercial interests should not obscure the diplomatic record that his supporters cite in defending his role. During Trump's first presidency, he played a central part in the negotiations that produced the Abraham Accords, establishing formal normalization agreements between Israel and several Arab states. Supporters regard those agreements as evidence that personal relationships, economic cooperation, and unconventional diplomatic approaches can produce results that traditional negotiations have struggled to achieve. They also point to Kushner's extensive contacts among senior political figures in Israel and the Gulf. From the administration's perspective, such relationships can be valuable when negotiations are politically sensitive and trust between governments is limited. Direct access may facilitate communication and allow proposals to be explored without the procedural constraints of conventional diplomatic channels. Kushner has argued that his business experience and international relationships are assets rather than liabilities. His position is that familiarity with regional leaders and economic interests can contribute to the negotiation of practical agreements. That argument deserves consideration because diplomatic effectiveness and potential conflicts of interest are separate questions. An individual may possess valuable negotiating abilities while still requiring clear safeguards to prevent private interests from influencing public responsibilities. The existence of a potential conflict does not prove that a diplomatic agreement is improper. Equally, successful diplomacy does not automatically resolve questions concerning financial disclosure, independence, and public accountability.

What the Evidence Establishes

The available record demonstrates that Affinity Partners secured substantial investments from foreign institutions, including Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund. Congressional investigators documented significant management fees and questioned whether the financial arrangements created risks of improper foreign influence. It also establishes that Affinity became the largest shareholder in Phoenix Financial, which maintained investments in companies associated with Israeli military equipment and defense production. Affinity subsequently realized substantial proceeds from selling part of its Phoenix holding. The record confirms that Kushner has participated in important diplomatic activities involving Gaza, Iran, Russia, and Ukraine while maintaining ownership of his investment firm. His commercial activities have also extended to major development proposals involving politically sensitive locations in Serbia and Albania. These findings support legitimate scrutiny of potential conflicts between commercial interests and diplomatic responsibilities. They do not establish that Kushner accepted unlawful payments, manipulated negotiations to benefit his investments, directed military-related investment decisions, or improperly obtained public contracts. The distinction is critical to a responsible assessment. Questions about institutional safeguards, financial transparency, and political access must not be converted into unsupported allegations of criminal conduct. At the same time, the absence of an established criminal violation does not eliminate the need for oversight. Public accountability includes identifying circumstances that could compromise independent decision-making before an improper transaction occurs.

Moscow and the Expansion of Personal Diplomacy

The November 2026 negotiations with Russia illustrate how far Kushner's diplomatic responsibilities have expanded. His involvement now reaches beyond the Middle East into discussions affecting Ukraine's sovereignty, European security, and the future relationship between Russia and Western governments. The Abu Dhabi talks preceding the Moscow visit produced progress on a possible prisoner exchange but did not resolve the fundamental disputes underlying the war. Russian and Ukrainian representatives remained divided over territorial questions and the conditions necessary for a durable settlement. European participation has become another sensitive issue. Governments across the continent have emphasized that decisions affecting their security cannot be determined exclusively by Washington and Moscow without meaningful European involvement. Kushner has acknowledged the importance of European participation, although the structure and scope of future negotiations remain contested. His role places him at the center of a diplomatic process with consequences extending well beyond the immediate parties. Nothing in the financial relationships examined here demonstrates that Kushner's investments determine his position toward Russia or Ukraine. His involvement nevertheless makes the legal and institutional questions surrounding his authority increasingly consequential. The greater the public responsibility exercised by an individual, the stronger the public interest in understanding the safeguards governing that responsibility. This principle applies whether the individual is a confirmed government official, a special adviser, or an unpaid intermediary working at the president's request.