When Family Business Becomes Foreign Policy
Bloomberg’s recent dispatch casually highlights former President Trump’s penchant for appointing loyalists, specifically his son-in-law Jared Kushner and developer Steve Witkoff, to handle critical international issues like Iran, Ukraine, and Gaza. Apparently, these complex geopolitical challenges – traditionally the domain of seasoned diplomats – are being managed as personal portfolios by
individuals whose primary experience lies in leveraging real estate. One might wonder what specific diplomatic acumen a developer of luxury hotels brings to de-escalating nuclear standoffs or humanitarian crises. This isn't merely unconventional; it’s a deliberate sidestepping of established diplomatic channels, reminiscent of the 1950s when business interests dictated covert foreign policy, such
as the 1954 CIA-backed coup in Guatemala to protect the United Fruit Company. Kushner, notably, secured a $2 billion investment from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund for his private equity firm, Affinity Partners, shortly after leaving the White House — a fund chaired by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, whom Kushner had advised. This financial entanglement naturally raises questions about
whose interests are truly being served in the Middle East. The pattern, of course, is familiar: privatizing foreign policy effectively removes it from congressional oversight and public scrutiny, allowing for highly personalized, transaction-based approaches. This creates a fertile ground for conflicts of interest, where national security decisions can easily become entangled with personal