A Familiar Face Reappears as Middle East Power Broker
The American political landscape remains unpredictable, but some patterns are all too familiar. Jared Kushner’s return to the diplomatic spotlight has raised eyebrows, not only inside the Beltway but among observers worldwide. As President Donald Trump gears up for his first major foreign visit of his second term—a high-stakes tour through the Middle East—the presence of Kushner operating behind the scenes signals the reemergence of old dynamics, where business, family ties, and foreign policy blend uncomfortably close.
Kushner, now outwardly committed to private life in Florida with his family, once appeared content to step away from the glare of political machinations. Yet as Trump’s most ambitious international gambit looms, he’s quietly advising administration officials. According to CNN’s Alayna Treene, Kushner has moved to the heart of U.S. diplomatic efforts, particularly those aimed at expanding ties between Israel and influential Gulf states like Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Qatar. His influence is so pronounced that some officials privately refer to him as the linchpin for any breakthrough agreements.
Why does this matter now? The region is in flux, with new alliances forming and old ones fraying. Trump’s goal: extract significant economic investment from Gulf monarchies and nudge them further down the path of normalization with Israel. For progressives, the story is less about grand deals and more about the troubling blurring of lines between public service and private enrichment—an entanglement that hobbles American credibility on the world stage and raises profound ethical questions.
When Private Fortunes and Public Diplomacy Intersect
This interplay between personal interests and foreign policy is not just theoretical. Kushner’s private equity firm, Affinity Partners, enjoys substantial backing from Gulf sovereign wealth funds—most notably, Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund, controlled by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The New York Times reported that Kushner’s firm secured $2 billion from the Saudis, despite skepticism from internal advisers about his lack of private equity experience and the inherent risk. Might these lucrative ties color America’s diplomatic agenda?
Such conflicts aren’t just fodder for partisan critics. Richard Painter, former chief White House ethics lawyer under President George W. Bush, characterized Kushner’s ongoing Gulf relationships as “one of the most glaring conflicts of interest in modern American political history.” This is not a case of idle speculation. Kushner reportedly remains in “regular, sometimes weekly” contact with MBS, as sources told CNN—an intimacy that offers unparalleled access, but also engrains foreign interests deep within U.S. policy conversations.
“You cannot serve two masters—American interests and your own financial interests, especially in a volatile region where the stakes are so high.”—Richard Painter, former White House chief ethics lawyer
Yet the Trump camp dismisses ethical qualms as Beltway noise. Supporters tout Kushner’s record—his hand in the Abraham Accords led to the first recognition of Israel in decades by the UAE and Bahrain, now considered a rare bipartisan diplomatic success. They argue his connections are precisely what make such incremental peace-building possible.
But this pragmatic embrace glosses over the risks. The central question lingers: Whose interests shape the agenda? Harvard’s Steven Walt, a leading analyst of U.S. foreign policy, warns that “as long as private actors with vast business ventures continue to broker statecraft, American foreign policy risks becoming indistinguishable from elite networking.”
Ethics in the Shadows: The Cost to American Values
A closer look reveals that Trump’s envoys—official or not—operate in a troublesome grey zone. Kushner’s involvement is entirely informal, without official government appointment or congressional oversight. Official statements downplay expectations for a landmark agreement with Saudi Arabia, but the mere presence of Trump’s “chief negotiator” conveys a clear message: transactional diplomacy, not transformative change, is again the order of the day.
The privatization of foreign policy expertise is not a new phenomenon, but rarely has it been so stark. Coming on the heels of Kushner’s promise to remain on the sidelines in Trump’s second term—so he could focus on his investment firm and family—this return raises the specter of unfulfilled pledges and revolving-door politics. Ivanka Trump, by contrast, has stuck to a markedly lower profile, engaging in personal pursuits and declining any renewed formal advisory role. The contrast couldn’t be sharper: one steps back, the other steps in—without ever facing voters, oversight, or transparency requirements.
Progressive values demand an unflinching accounting for such conflicts. Daniel Kurtzer, former U.S. Ambassador to Israel, frames the stakes directly: “There’s simply no precedent for a former high-level adviser returning to private business and then reentering the diplomatic fray with such extensive financial ties to foreign interests. This corrodes public trust, not just abroad, but here at home.”
Let’s not kid ourselves—the current arrangement is not a one-off. When democratic accountability yields to personal networks and financial incentives, the American public loses its voice in foreign policy. It’s not just a matter for lawyers or watchdogs. If democracy is to mean more than a slogan, you deserve transparency: Who’s really at the negotiating table, and why?
The bottom line: Jared Kushner’s role behind closed doors is neither simple nor benign. It is a case study in modern American power—where private equity portfolios meet the delicate business of peacemaking and statecraft, and where lines meant to preserve the public good are at risk of being irreparably blurred. As the administration seeks Gulf investments and diplomatic breakthroughs, vigilant scrutiny isn’t just warranted—it’s a democratic imperative.
