Democrats of all political stripes were exasperated by a New York Times report Sunday that “Representative Hakeem Jeffries, Democrat of New York and the minority leader, met privately in recent weeks with Jared Kushner, President Trump’s son-in-law and top outside adviser, and discussed potential areas of common ground.” Numerous Democrats fumed that the get-together violated pro-democracy, anti-corruption values, defied common sense, and seemed politically naïve.
First and foremost, Jeffries made a cardinal error in meeting with Kushner, a non-government employee whose self-promotional antics — aided by his family connection — have no doubt made Hunter Biden blush. (If you can imagine Speaker Mike Johnson meeting with Hunter Biden in search of “common ground,” you can appreciate the absurdity of the Jeffries meeting.)
The meeting inevitably extends legitimacy to Kushner’s ethical gamesmanship, which characterizes the regime’s grotesque corruption. Kushner has fully exploited his name to pursue billions in foreign investment opportunities, all the while evading whatever ethical constraints (concern for presidential relations’ ethics — how quaint!) exist for those performing top government jobs. While continuing to carry out missions for his father-in-law regarding Gaza and Iran, Kushner has leveraged his role to reap riches in the Middle East, triggered an uprising in Albania stemming from his scheme to develop an island resort, and been forced to back out of a scandal-plagued Serbian boondoggle.
As Jeffries surely knows, reports in March that Kushner was soliciting funds from Middle East sovereign wealth funds (while acting as an envoy, however incompetently, in Iran talks) triggered a furious statement from Senate Finance Committee Ranking Member Ron Wyden (D-OR) and House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform Ranking Rep. Robert Garcia (D-CA). In it, they recapped Kushner’s years-long exploits, starting with Wyden’s “investigation of Kushner’s conflicts of interest in 2020 with an initial probe into whether Kushner advised Donald Trump to support a blockade against Qatar while Kushner Companies was seeking a billion-dollar bailout from Qatari, and possibly other Middle Eastern officials, for the property at 666 Fifth Avenue.”
As Wyden recounted, his investigation in 2024 examined “whether Affinity Partners, the firm Kushner launched immediately after the end of the first Trump administration, was in reality a compensation scheme designed in part to skirt federal disclosure requirements.” As a result of the investigation, he referred Kushner to the Justice Department for possible violations of the Foreign Agents Registration Act in connection with his Saudi investment activities.
On the House side, in 2024, Ranking Member Garcia and Ranking Member Jamie Raskin “urged Chairmen James Comer and Glenn Grothman to hold a hearing regarding Kushner’s apparent influence peddling and quid pro quos for actions he undertook to reshape U.S. foreign policy in the Middle East and beyond, as senior adviser in President Trump’s first Administration, following reports that Kushner was close to finalizing investments in Albania and Serbia and leveraged relationships he built during his time as a senior adviser in his father-in-law’s White House.” And Kushner continues to evade Congressional inquiry to this day, a direct affront to its Article I power. Once in the majority, Democrats should be investigating — not looking for common ground with — Kushner.
Given all that, any meeting with him strikes one as ill-conceived (at the very least). One can imagine some critical messages Jeffries could have delivered, including:
a warning to preserve all documents relevant to allegations of self-dealing with foreign powers;
a heads-up that Democrats will pursue, without exception, all allegations of corruption involving Trump, Trump family members, associates, and government employees;
a preview of legislation that would mandate full financial disclosure and conflicts of interest rules for anyone serving as an envoy/international negotiator; and
an FYI that the disgraced Board of Peace will be put under close supervision of Congress (and/all U.S. government employees and/or presidential relations barred from participation), beginning with public hearings and a subpoena of all relevant documents.
In response to written questions to Jeffries’s staff asking: whether Kushner’s conflicts of interest came up at the meeting; what common ground Jeffries believes might exist; and why Jeffries decided to meet with someone who has purposefully sidestepped a government role to avoid scrutiny, I received a bland written statement early Monday evening:
Throughout this Congress, Republicans have adopted a my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing that has failed the American people. To stop the madness, we have repeatedly made clear that an extremist approach will not work and will be met with forceful opposition. The American people want bold change and that’s what House Democrats will deliver. In every conversation that we have with the Trump administration, we will continue to make it explicitly clear that the affordability crisis is not a hoax and nothing short of transformational policy change is acceptable. We are fighting for an affordable America. The question is whether Republicans will join us.”
That was not going to mollify irate Democrats. Fortunately, later Monday evening, Jeffries’s tone noticeably shifted. He released the following video just a few hours later:
To review: Jeffries’ tone did improve, although the original decision to meet with Kushner was, as they say in soccer, an “own goal.” When Democrats, as seems increasingly likely, win the House majority, their leadership will meet with Trump, his Cabinet, and/or White House staff. But even then, it is hard to fathom any rationale for meeting with someone who has chosen to avoid a government post to flout White House conflicts of interest laws and keep his affairs hidden from Congress.
Moreover, in the future, Jeffries must avoid any signal that that this is a “normal” president with whom he expects to do business, lest he rekindle criticism that he does not appreciate the nature of the Trumpian threat to democracy and is seeking to accommodate rather than confront a dangerous president. To be clear: no “common ground” exists with a regime engaging in an illegal war (contemptuous of Congress’s constitutional role), massive self-dealing (allegedly involving family members!), a reign of terror against immigrants, routine destruction of constitutional guardrails (e.g., ignoring Congress’s appropriations’ role, violating the Epstein Files Disclosure Act), a savage assault on healthcare to pay for billionaires’ tax cuts, thorough corruption of the Justice Department, and routine racist insults.
If they gain the majority, Democrats’ mandate will not be to find “common ground” with a decrepit autocrat bent on destroying congressional power. It will be to halt him in his tracks, reverse disastrous policies, and exercise exacting oversight. For now, Democratic leaders should focus entirely on achieving a resounding defeat that will hold Kushner, his father-in-law, and the entire regime accountable for their incompetence, malfeasance, and illegality.
Jeffries likely shot himself in the foot with his Kushner meeting. He might not be elected speaker after this. Someone like Jamie Raskin would be a better choice.
I felt like Charlie Brown and said, "Good grief" when I read about Jeffries' meeting with Kushner. Both Jeffries and Schumer should lose their leadership positions after the midterm elections. Can anyone imagine Nancy Pelosi exhibiting such poor judgment? The Democrats need competent leadership in these perilous times. We can do better.