After publishing Monday’s article, I realized that Jared Kushner’s name kept showing up in my research. I finally had a little time to follow that trail.

< click here to read that article >

Here’s what I found:

• In Trump’s first term (2017 – 2021) Kushner was appointed by Trump (father-in-law) a Senior Adviser to President Trump. During that time he traveled to Saudi Arabia at least 5 times in an official White House capacity.
• January 21, 2021 Kushner formed Affinity Partners the day after he and President Trump left the White House…and Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund committed $2 billion.
• 2025 – early 2026 Kushner participated as an informal adviser in U.S. diplomatic efforts before holding a formal title.
• Mid-February 2026: Kushner participated alongside Steve Witkoff in US-Iran nuclear negotiations before his appointment as Special Envoy for Peace.
• February 19, 2026 was formally appointed by his father-in-law (President Trump) as Special Envoy for Peace…less than 10 days before open hostilities between the United States and Iran began.
• Late February 2026: Kushner participated in high-level nuclear negotiations with Iranian officials…after his appointment as Special Envoy for Peace.
• April 11–12, 2026: Kushner was part of the U.S. delegation at the peace talks with Iran.

Now look…I want to be clear…these facts alone don’t connect anything to anybody and alone don’t indicate guilt of any kind. But, they do identify some interesting coincidences and form patterns. However, simply because most people would recognize that this creates the appearance of a possible conflict of interest does not mean there is one. But, public confidence depends not only on actual integrity but also on transparent processes that allow others to evaluate potential conflicts.

I can’t help but think of the term “stewardship” as it relates to stewardship of delegated authority. If government officials exercise authority on behalf of the people, then they have a responsibility not only to avoid actual corruption but also to conduct themselves in ways that maintain public trust. That doesn’t mean avoiding every conceivable suspicion…that would be impossible…but it does mean recognizing when circumstances create reasonable questions and addressing them with transparency.

Was that done here?

Now I have to ask…is there the possibility that Trump is more likely to authorize a nuclear program for Saudi Arabia vs Iran…based on the actual history of both countries and their connection to terrorist activities related to the United States?

What are your thoughts?

Do you remember back during the Biden years regarding his business dealings through his son Hunter when Republicans were crying:

• “This is a glaring conflict of interest.”
• “How can someone with those financial ties negotiate on behalf of the United States?”
• “Where are the ethics safeguards?”
• “Was there a recusal?”
• “Who benefited financially from these decisions?”
• “Congress should investigate.”

Many Democrats responded by saying:

• “There’s no evidence of wrongdoing.”
• “You’re connecting dots without proof.”
• “He followed the ethics rules.”
• “This is politically motivated.”
• “It’s a witch hunt.”

Here’s one for you…could you agree that…If we would demand answers under one administration, we should demand the same answers under another. The standard shouldn’t change with the party in power, right?

Then again…Are we judging the exercise of public power by consistent standards, or are we changing the rules depending on whose team is in office?

So many questions…

---

Related Articles –

• Found it a bit odd…