Kushner’s Hacked Phone, Alleged Secret Accounts and the $2 Billion Question

October 24, 2026

By Yiannis Damellos and Mars Strangelove Jr.

Illustrations by Gemini - Concept: Yiannis Damellos 

A report published by Vanity Fair has raised explosive questions about Jared Kushner’s financial relationships with Middle Eastern power brokers during Donald Trump’s first presidency. 

According to an excerpt from investigative journalist Matthew Cole’s forthcoming book, Dutch intelligence officers discovered that Russian military intelligence had obtained screenshots from Kushner’s iPhone, allegedly exposing his access to bank accounts linked to the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Saudi Arabia and Israel. The accounts reportedly involved at least $2 billion. Kushner has categorically denied the allegations, calling them fabricated. CBS News reports that it has not independently verified the book’s claims. 

The phone-compromise account dates to 2017–2018, when Kushner was a senior White House adviser with a leading role in Trump’s Middle East policy. According to Cole, Dutch intelligence accessed a Russian military intelligence server containing screenshots of Kushner’s phone. The reported surveillance allegedly allowed Dutch officers to see him log into a UAE bank account that had received hundreds of millions of dollars through a bank in Azerbaijan. If accurate, the episode raises a national-security question beyond the financial allegations: whether a foreign intelligence service gained visibility into the private communications and financial activity of a senior American official involved in sensitive negotiations. 

The book alleges that UAE and Saudi leaders initially discussed creating a fund to advance foreign-policy objectives sought by the incoming Trump administration. That broader proposal reportedly fell apart, but Cole alleges that at least $2 billion was subsequently placed in accounts linked to Kushner. One account, reportedly held at First Abu Dhabi Bank and managed through a UAE government-funded charity, received approximately $750 million. Cole says Kushner had signatory access, meaning he could potentially authorize transactions, although the account was not necessarily owned by him. His lawyer denies that Kushner had any knowledge of or connection to the charity or the alleged account. 

A second alleged arrangement involved approximately $1 billion transferred through Azerbaijan to Israel, with the money reportedly placed in an account at Israel’s central bank. Cole’s sources claim the arrangement was intended, at least in part, for Kushner’s personal benefit. The author also describes a separate financial arrangement connected to Israel’s efforts to help defend the UAE against a potential Iranian attack. These are serious allegations, but the published excerpt does not provide publicly verifiable bank statements or complete transaction records establishing the ownership, purpose and ultimate destination of all the funds. Kushner’s legal team says no such accounts existed and disputes the account presented by the author.

The potential legal implications are substantial if the allegations can be substantiated. During his first White House term, Kushner was a government employee subject to financial-disclosure requirements. Undisclosed access to foreign accounts could raise questions about compliance with those requirements and applicable tax laws. If money was offered in exchange for official action, investigators could also examine whether federal bribery laws or foreign-agent registration requirements were violated. But access to an account, a large transfer or a relationship with a foreign official does not, by itself, establish a crime. The evidence would have to demonstrate the relevant conduct, knowledge and intent. Kushner’s attorney denies that he violated any laws.

The allegations are especially consequential because Kushner has again become a prominent figure in Trump’s foreign policy. In the current administration, he has been involved in sensitive negotiations concerning the Middle East and other international conflicts while continuing to lead his private investment business. The Associated Press has reported that the watchdog group Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington is separately suing over his volunteer envoy role, arguing that his diplomatic responsibilities and overseas business interests warrant government ethics, vetting and financial-disclosure safeguards. The White House maintains that Kushner is serving voluntarily as a private citizen and that his arrangements comply with applicable rules. That separate lawsuit is an ethics dispute, not proof of the new financial allegations. 

The core issue is whether a person exercising influence on behalf of the United States could simultaneously have access to substantial funds connected to foreign governments whose interests he was helping negotiate. If the reported arrangements existed as described, the public would have legitimate grounds to ask who controlled the money, whether it was disclosed to the appropriate authorities, whether any official decisions were linked to it, and if the president or relevant national-security officials knew about it. 

For now, the allegations remain contested. Kushner has rejected them in full, and CBS has not independently verified the claims in Cole’s book excerpt. The next test is whether the author’s account can be supported by bank records, financial disclosures, intelligence documentation and independently corroborated testimony. Given Kushner’s role in high-level diplomacy, the stakes extend beyond his personal finances: they concern the transparency of American foreign policy and the safeguards intended to prevent private interests from compromising public responsibilities. If the evidence supports the allegations, the consequences could be far more serious than a political scandal. But the evidence must establish the case.