Jared Kushner Denies Allegations After Report Claims Hacked Phone Revealed Secret Saudi and UAE Financial Dealings
Jared Kushner, US President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and former senior White House adviser, has strongly denied allegations of undisclosed financial arrangements involving Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE) and Israel. The controversy followed a report published by Vanity Fair on October 22, which alleged that Dutch intelligence officers gained access to information from Kushner’s phone and uncovered details of financial accounts linked to Gulf states.
The claims, based on an excerpt from journalist Matthew Cole’s forthcoming book, have not been established as findings of wrongdoing. Kushner and his legal representatives reject the allegations, describing them as false and disputing the existence of the accounts described in the report.
What Does the Report Allege?
According to the Vanity Fair investigation, Dutch intelligence officials reportedly obtained access to screenshots of Kushner’s iPhone through information recovered from a Russian military intelligence-linked hacking operation. The report alleges that Dutch investigators were subsequently able to monitor activity displayed on the device during the first Trump administration.
The investigation claims that Kushner accessed a bank account linked to the UAE that had received hundreds of millions of dollars through a bank in Azerbaijan. The account was reportedly held by the Watani Al Emarat Foundation, a UAE government-funded charitable organisation, at First Abu Dhabi Bank.
The report states that approximately $750 million was transferred into the account and that Kushner was listed as a signatory. It also makes an important distinction: Kushner was allegedly authorised to access the account but was not its legal owner.
According to the report, the account was overseen by Tahnoon bin Zayed, a senior UAE official and brother of UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The report alleges that the arrangement was connected to discussions involving Gulf leaders and US foreign policy objectives.
These claims rely on sources and material described by the author. The alleged transactions and their purpose have not been independently established as proven wrongdoing.
Allegations Involving Saudi Arabia and the UAE
The report further alleges that Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman and UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed initially discussed a fund intended to support foreign policy objectives during the early years of Trump’s first administration.
The proposed arrangement reportedly did not proceed in its original form. However, the investigation claims that at least $2 billion was subsequently placed in two accounts associated with Kushner.
A separate allegation concerns approximately $1 billion reportedly transferred to an account in Israel through Azerbaijan. The report suggests that the funds were intended for Kushner’s benefit and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu was involved in discussions surrounding the arrangement.
The investigation also describes alleged communications involving Kushner and Netanyahu through David Friedman, who served as US ambassador to Israel during Trump’s first term. Friedman has denied knowledge of or involvement in the alleged financial arrangement, according to the published report.
The claims raise questions about the possible overlap between official diplomatic responsibilities and private financial interests. However, allegations about the purpose of transfers, the identities of their beneficiaries and any potential political arrangements must be distinguished from independently verified financial records or legal findings.
Kushner Calls the Claims False
Kushner responded forcefully after the report appeared, rejecting its central allegations and criticising the author’s reporting.
In a statement posted on X, he described the claims as “outrageous fabrications” and said they were categorically false. He argued that his representatives had denied the allegations before publication but that the report did not provide sufficient verifiable evidence to substantiate them.
Kushner also pointed to the absence, in his view, of bank statements, wire-transfer records, account numbers, transaction dates and other documentation that could establish the alleged transactions.
He said he had been subject to extensive scrutiny during his time in the White House, including congressional inquiries and a special counsel investigation. Kushner added that he had voluntarily provided more than 30 hours of testimony during investigations and argued that the allegations would have emerged if the described events had occurred.
His position is that the accounts and arrangements described in the report did not exist. His lawyer has also denied that Kushner made unauthorised agreements with foreign officials or violated the law.
At the time of publication, the allegations remained disputed, and no finding of criminal wrongdoing arising from the specific claims had been established in the reporting reviewed.
Why Kushner’s Role in Middle East Diplomacy Matters
Kushner served as a senior adviser during Trump’s first administration and played a prominent role in US diplomacy in the Middle East. He was involved in efforts to broker agreements between Israel and several Arab countries, including the 2020 Abraham Accords.
His connections with Gulf leaders have also attracted attention because of his later work in private investment. After leaving the White House, Kushner established Affinity Partners, an investment firm that has received substantial backing from Middle Eastern investors.
The existence of those business relationships does not establish that the newly reported allegations are true. However, the combination of private investment activity and diplomatic involvement has made questions about disclosure, conflicts of interest and government oversight an important part of the broader discussion surrounding his career.
The latest report focuses on alleged events from the first Trump administration. Any assessment of potential legal or ethical violations would depend on evidence about the accounts, Kushner’s actual authority over them, applicable disclosure requirements and whether any relevant government approvals were obtained.
Questions About Intelligence, Financial Disclosure and Accountability
The alleged phone compromise also highlights the risks that cyber espionage can pose to senior government officials. Access to a device may expose sensitive communications and financial information, but screenshots or intelligence assessments still require careful verification before conclusions can be drawn about their meaning.
The allegations also touch on US rules governing financial disclosures by government officials. Senior executive-branch employees are generally subject to ethics and financial reporting requirements designed to identify potential conflicts of interest. Whether those requirements applied in the manner suggested by the report would depend on the facts, including the nature of any alleged account access and what was disclosed to the relevant authorities.
Neither the existence of an allegation nor its publication establishes that a law was broken. A reliable assessment requires verifiable records, responses from the people involved and, where appropriate, findings by competent authorities.
What Happens Next?
The dispute is likely to keep attention on the intersection of US foreign policy, private investment and relationships with wealthy overseas partners. The report has prompted renewed scrutiny of Kushner’s past diplomatic work, while his categorical denial places the burden on the claims to be tested against evidence.
For now, the central facts remain contested. Vanity Fair has published allegations based on its investigation and an excerpt from Cole’s forthcoming book; Kushner and his representatives say the claims are fabricated and unsupported.
Further documentation or independent investigative findings would be needed to resolve the competing accounts. Until then, the reported financial arrangements should be treated as allegations rather than established facts.
