Jared Kushner has forcefully denied explosive allegations in a new Vanity Fair report, calling them “completely insane” and insisting they “never happened.” The story, taken from Matthew Cole’s forthcoming book Princes and Thieves: Jared Kushner and Mohamed bin Zayed’s Secret Plot to Remake the Middle East, alleges that Dutch intelligence secretly monitored Kushner’s phone and uncovered what the author claims were hidden financial arrangements involving Middle Eastern governments. Kushner, President Donald Trump’s son-in-law and special envoy, responded Thursday in a fiery social media post, saying that every claim had been denied on the record and that the author offered “not a single shred of evidence” to back them up. The denial was swift and absolute, but the report itself is sprawling, weaving together intelligence agencies, a Russian military operative’s server, a UAE-linked bank account, and hundreds of millions of dollars moving across borders. For Kushner, who has spent years under the glare of investigations, media scrutiny, and public suspicion about his Middle East work and his family’s financial dealings, the latest story is yet another battle in a long-running war over his legacy. But rather than quietly dismiss the piece, Kushner met it head-on, describing it as “a mixture of fantasy, fiction, and advocacy.” The confrontation sets up a familiar dynamic: a dramatic investigative claim that relies heavily on anonymous sources and a former official who insists the entire narrative is fabricated. In an age of polarized media, the truth may be less about what happened than about whom one chooses to believe.
At the center of the allegations is a claim that would feel at home in a spy thriller. Vanity Fair reports that Dutch intelligence services obtained screenshots of Kushner’s iPhone through files found on a server belonging to a Russian military intelligence operative. According to the report, those screenshots provided a window into Kushner’s phone activity, and intelligence officials eventually concluded that he had accessed a United Arab Emirates-linked bank account that had received hundreds of millions of dollars from a bank in Azerbaijan. The account in question was at First Abu Dhabi Bank and held by Watani Al Emarat Foundation, a UAE government-funded charity. Cole alleges that roughly $750 million was transferred into the account and that Kushner was a signatory, meaning he had access even if he was not the owner. The report further claims that the account was intended to serve as a foreign policy fund and that the charity was used to support the UAE’s overseas military and intelligence operations. If true, the allegations would raise serious ethical and legal questions about whether Kushner used his government position to facilitate secret, foreign-directed financial schemes. But Kushner and his legal team reject the entire narrative as fiction. Kushner’s attorney, Chad Mizelle, said the allegations were “categorically false” and that there was “a total absence of supporting evidence.” He noted that no bank statements, wire-transfer records, account numbers, or transaction dates were produced. To Kushner’s defenders, the story is not a carefully documented investigation but an author’s imagination dressed up as journalism.
The report does not stop with the UAE account. It also alleges that a separate account in Israel received roughly $1 billion intended for Kushner’s personal benefit. According to Cole, UAE President Mohamed bin Zayed Al Nahyan arranged the transfer, and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu encouraged Kushner to have the money deposited in Israel. The article claims that Kushner communicated with Netanyahu about the transactions through David Friedman, who was then the U.S. ambassador to Israel. Friedman, a longtime Kushner ally and Trump loyalist, denied any role in the alleged scheme. He said he knew “absolutely nothing” about the allegations and called the claims about him “100% false.” Kushner’s counsel also told the magazine that Kushner had “no idea” about the account. The sheer size of the alleged sums—$1 billion intended for personal benefit—makes the story remarkable, but it is also precisely why skeptics question it. If such a transfer had taken place, they argue, it would have left a trail of financial records, communications, and witnesses. Kushner pointed to the intense scrutiny he faced during the period in question, including media investigations, congressional inquiries, and a special counsel investigation. He said he voluntarily cooperated with those investigations and provided more than 30 hours of testimony. “None of these allegations ever surfaced,” he wrote, “because none of these events ever happened.” For someone who has been questioned by federal investigators and grilled by lawmakers, the absence of any previous mention of these accounts is, in his view, proof that the story is fabricated. The allegations, it should be noted, have not been established as findings of wrongdoing.
Kushner’s defense went beyond his own public statement. His legal team sent a 13-page letter to Simon & Schuster, the publisher of the book, before publication, denying the claims and challenging what Mizelle called “a total absence of supporting evidence.” Despite that, Vanity Fair published the excerpt. Mizelle said the magazine had amplified “false and defamatory allegations” and questioned what independent verification was done before publishing. He said the legal team intended to pursue legal action against those responsible. The threat of a lawsuit is significant. Kushner has rarely sued journalists, but he and his allies have consistently portrayed coverage of him as unfair and politically motivated. The letter to the publisher was an attempt to stop the story before it reached the public, and when that failed, Kushner’s team shifted to public relations and legal posturing. What remains unclear is whether the book contains any documentation that will eventually surface. Book excerpts are often designed to generate attention, and authors sometimes hold back materials for the full publication. But in this case, the complete lack of specific financial details in the Vanity Fair article—no account numbers, no transfer dates, no records—makes it easier for Kushner to dismiss the entire thing as baseless. For journalists, the challenge is that anonymous sources can provide compelling stories but cannot be tested in the same way as documents. For readers, the challenge is deciding whether this is a case of powerful interests covering up corruption or an author overreaching with sensational claims.
The White House has rallied behind Kushner in unmistakable terms. Anna Kelly, the principal deputy press secretary, accused Vanity Fair of publishing “baseless smears” and defended Kushner’s work on behalf of the administration, including efforts to bring home Israeli hostages and facilitate talks between Russia and Ukraine. She said the report was based on what two anonymous sources supposedly heard about but never even saw themselves, because the events did not happen. White House Communications Director Steven Cheung was even blunter, calling the piece “TOTAL FAKE NEWS!” and saying the article came from a book that was “complete fiction” and was fabricated from the “warped mind” of a failed spy thriller writer. The language was combative even by Trump administration standards, underscoring how seriously Kushner’s allies take the accusations. But not everyone in Washington is defending him. House Oversight Committee Democrats released a statement saying Kushner needs to “answer these questions before the American people.” They described the report as “the latest in a series of serious allegations that Jared Kushner has been selling foreign policy to the highest bidder.” That phrase captures the broader suspicion that has followed Kushner for years, from his family’s business dealings with foreign investors to the less traditional diplomatic approach he brought to the Middle East. To his supporters, Kushner is a dealmaker who helped broker historic agreements. To his critics, he is a symbol of the blurry line between public service and private profit. The debate over the Vanity Fair report is not just about one story; it is about how people see Kushner and the Trump administration’s approach to power.
The allegations center on Kushner’s activities during Trump’s first administration, when he served as senior White House adviser and played a central role in Middle East diplomacy. During Trump’s second term, Kushner has again taken part in high-level diplomatic efforts as an envoy, including negotiations related to the wars in Gaza and Ukraine and discussions involving Iran. He also runs Affinity Partners, a private equity firm that has received investments from Middle Eastern investors, a fact that has fueled questions about whether his government service has benefited his business interests. The Vanity Fair report, if proven, would be a massive scandal. But if Kushner and his lawyers are right, it is a cautionary tale about the dangers of anonymous sourcing and the appetite for sensational stories about powerful people. As with so many stories in the Trump era, the truth may remain contested. The book is not yet published, and more details may emerge. Vanity Fair and Matthew Cole have not backed away from the reporting, and Kushner has promised legal action. What is clear is that the fight is far from over. For now, Kushner remains a central figure in the administration, trusted by the president and engaged in sensitive diplomacy. The report has not changed his role, at least not publicly. But it has added another layer of controversy to a man who has always seemed to attract it. Whether the allegations are fantasy or fact, they have already accomplished what any explosive story hopes to achieve: they have captured attention, sparked furious denials, and forced people to take sides. In the end, the truth may depend on evidence that neither side has fully presented, and until then, the story remains a political and legal battleground.