Watchdog group sues Trump administration over Jared Kushner's government work
- CREW files suit claiming Kushner's Middle East peace envoy role lacks Senate confirmation and financial disclosures, violating the Appointments Clause.
- Suit highlights his $6 billion fund is 99% foreign-owned, including by Saudi Qatari and Emirati sovereign funds, while he negotiates with those nations.
- Kushner’s lawyers say volunteer service, zero salary, and compliance with ethics counsel make the suit meritless.
- White House calls CREW 'Trump-deranged,' noting precedent for private envoys since George Washington.
- Legal bid seeks to strip Kushner of power or force him to file disclosures, not just remove him from the chat.
Brief Summary
Another day, another lawsuit from CREW trying to untangle the pretzel logic of Trump's family-owned State Department. The watchdogs claim Jared Kushner is running a shadow foreign policy without Senate sign-off or a single financial form, which is like showing up to a poker game with no chips—and the other players are sovereign wealth funds with $6 billion in their pockets. Kushner's defense: he's a volunteer! Because nothing says 'public trust' like selling peace deals while your investment firm cashes checks from Riyadh and Doha. The White House, naturally, dismisses this as 'Trump-deranged' hysteria, ignoring the fact that even George Washington’s envoys didn't invest in their negotiating partners' portfolios. If the suit succeeds, Kushner either gets a real title with real oversight—or gets to go home and make even more money without the hassle of pretending to be a diplomat.
Why This Matters
This isn't just legal jargon for politicos—it's the latest test of whether America's 'swamp drainer' is actually just running a family business franchise. For the average reader, this lawsuit hits close to home: it questions whether the person whispering in the President's ear on life-and-death foreign conflicts is accountable to you, the taxpayer, or to his own portfolio. If Kushner gets a pass, it sets a precedent that any rich relative can negotiate with foreign governments while their fund owns a piece of the action—no background check, no disclosure, no problem. On the other hand, if courts force him to file disclosures, we might finally learn if the 'Art of the Deal' includes a side ledger for sovereign wealth gifts. For voters, this is a gut check: do you trust a Swiss-style secrecy bank account to broker your nation's security, or do you expect your diplomats to play by the same rules as a mid-level bureaucrat at the EPA?