The office ended.
The sovereign fees began.

What the records show

After leaving the White House, Kushner founded and owns A Fin Management. It does business as Affinity Partners. Senate Finance investigators looked at the firm's SEC filings, briefings, and records. They reported that 99% of its roughly $3 billion under management came from people outside the U.S.1

The committee reported a $2 billion pledge from Saudi Arabia's Public Investment Fund. It carried a 1.25% yearly management fee. Money also came from Qatar, the United Arab Emirates, and other foreign investors. Staff figured about $157.5 million in management fees from foreign investors through 2024. That included $87.5 million from the Saudi fund. More fees are set by contract through August 2026.2

Why timing and counterparties matter

Kushner's White House job included Middle East diplomacy. The government pledges came after he left office. That order of events fits two stories. One story is governments hiring a well-connected private manager. The other is governments rewarding him for access or ties. Timing alone cannot tell us which story is true.

This still matters during a later Trump presidency. We do not report Kushner here as a second-term official. But he is the president's son-in-law. He and his family stay politically connected. And the governments that invested still have big interests before the United States.

Does the money track proximity to power?

The public Form ADV filings sharpen the question. They do not answer it. A Fin Management reported its regulatory assets under management over time. It reported $2.009 billion in one pooled fund on December 23, 2021 (filing 1585103). It reported $2.539 billion in two funds for year-end 2021 (1623193). It reported $3.056 billion in two funds for year-end 2022 (1730613). And it reported $3.005 billion in two funds for year-end 2023 (1850149).7

1. 2021 to 2023 · After the first term: reported assets rose from about $2.01 billion to about $3.00 billion. From the 2022 annual filing on, about 99% was tied to non-U.S. clients.
2. 2024 · The election year: the yearly update filed March 27, 2025 (1965330) reported $4.804 billion at year-end 2024. That was across six pooled funds. Of that, $4.755 billion was tied to non-U.S. clients.8 That is about $1.799 billion more than year-end 2023, or 59.9% higher. But the filing cannot split that increase into money received before Election Day and money received after it.
3. 2025 · The second term: the yearly update filed March 22, 2026 (2074750) reported $6.160 billion across the same six pooled funds. Of that, $6.097 billion was tied to non-U.S. clients.9 That is about $1.356 billion more than year-end 2024, or 28.2% higher.

The same growth fits two stories. The public data cannot pick between them. One story is governments hiring a private manager whose business was growing. The other is expected political access making that manager more appealing. The dated filings give more reason to look closely. They do not prove a reward, a motive, or a deal.

The investigation is not a verdict

Senate Finance looked at possible foreign influence and FARA issues. Its chairman's conclusions are oversight findings. They are not a court ruling or an agency ruling. The record here shows no final ruling that these fees were illegal. It shows no ruling that they were hidden payments. And it shows no ruling that they paid for a named official act.

Update · August 23, 2026

The conflict is visible. The response is revealing.

In April 2026, Jamie Raskin opened a separate inquiry. He is the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee. The inquiry looked at Kushner's reported second-term work as a “Special Envoy for Peace.” At the same time, Kushner kept running Affinity and raising money for it. The letter asked for records about the fund, foreign officials, White House contacts, and talks over Gaza, Ukraine, and Iran. The letter is an oversight request. It holds Raskin's allegations. It is not a set of findings. It is not a subpoena. It is not a ruling.4

The New York Times later reported a private meeting. It said House Democratic leader Hakeem Jeffries met with Kushner to discuss possible areas to work together.5 Jeffries' public statement did not confirm what the meeting was about. The wording is vague. The report shows no deal, no transaction, no compromise, and no motive. Here is why it matters. The conflict of interest is big enough that the opposition leader met with Kushner. And that leader could help oversee any investigation of it.

Fox News asked Republican House Speaker Mike Johnson about the reported meeting. Johnson said, “I don't know what that's about,” and described Kushner as “not really directly involved in the admin, at least in the day-to-day in the White House.”6 The wording matters. Johnson played down Kushner's day-to-day role in the White House. He did not say Kushner had no government role at all. That sits next to the House letter. The letter says Kushner acted as an outside envoy while he kept his private fund.

The strongest defense

Kushner left government before he started the firm. Government wealth funds often hire outside managers. Management fees are normal pay. A former official's ties and know-how can be worth money without being corrupt. Low early returns do not by themselves make a fee wrong.

Here is the accountability answer. The investors are foreign governments. The owner recently held public power that affected their region. So the public deserves full facts on the investors, fees, returns, and contacts. The standard is close scrutiny. It is not an assumption of guilt.