OMITTED

What the news leaves out.

← Omitted front page

Book Alleges Kushner Received Billions in Foreign Funds

7 sources · updated 2026-10-24
Left 14% Center 57% Right 29%
1 left · 4 center · 2 right

What happened

Vanity Fair first reported on 2026-10-23 an excerpt from Matthew Cole’s forthcoming book, Princes and Thieves: Jared Kushner and Mohamed bin Zayed’s Secret Plot to Remake the Middle East; CBS News and the Daily Caller credit that report as the origin. The excerpt alleged that Russian military intelligence hacked then–White House senior adviser Jared Kushner’s iPhone in 2017–2018, that Dutch intelligence later monitored the device, and that Kushner had access to more than $2 billion in undisclosed accounts linked to leaders of the United Arab Emirates and Saudi Arabia. Kushner denied the claims as “completely insane” and “categorically false,” saying no bank statements, wire records, account numbers, or transaction dates were provided. His counsel, Chad Mizelle, said there are no such accounts and that they intend to pursue legal action; White House communications director Steven Cheung called the article fiction. CBS News said it had not independently verified the excerpt, and the Jerusalem Post took down related reporting after identifying significant factual questions about the alleged transactions.
Sourcing check · Partly on the record · 7 articles

1 of 5 articles cite a named source for the story. It started with a Vanity Fair report citing unnamed sources; a named source appeared the next day. Jared Kushner denied part of it on the record.

What these terms mean and how they're counted
On the record · names a source 1 of 5
On the record means the article cites a source by name for the story's main claim: a person, or an institution speaking officially, such as a company statement or a named agency's spokesperson. The opposite is an unnamed source. The count is how many of the counted articles cite at least one such source; the names are everyone named across them, each once however the articles spell it. Here: Chad Mizelle
Primary evidence · cites a document or data 0 of 5
Primary evidence means the article cites a record you could check yourself: a court filing or ruling, a dataset or report, a recording or transcript, an official statement or press release, market data. A quote is not a document. The count is how many articles cite one. Here: None cited.
Credits another outlet 2 of 5
The article says the story comes from another outlet's reporting (“first reported by Reuters”). Those articles relay the story; they are not independent confirmation. Here: Vanity Fair
Unnamed sources 2 of 5
The main claim is attributed to people who are not identified: “people familiar with the matter”, “officials said”. The count is how many articles do this. Here: e.g. “Dutch intelligence agents”, “a police source”
On-record denial 2
A named person or institution says the claim, or part of it, is not true. It is on the record — someone signed their name to it — but it is not confirmation, so it never counts toward On the record. Criticizing or dissenting from a decision is not a denial. The count is how many people or institutions deny it; each is listed with the first article that carried the denial. Here: Jared Kushner (CBS News, Oct 23, 14:31 UTC); Jared Kushner's attorney (CBS News, Oct 23, 14:31 UTC)
How it developed
When the first report landed and whether it named anyone; when the first named source and the first document appeared. Here: First report Oct 23, 14:31 UTC by CBS News, crediting Vanity Fair, with no named source. First named source the next day, from The Hill.
Not counted 2
Opinion, analysis and video pieces, and articles too short to assess. Every count above is out of the counted articles. An article republished under a new headline is one article.
This is about who is cited, not whether the story is true. Each source below says what it names. How we count
BLINDSPOT. Only right-leaning outlets are covering this story — the other side's media is silent.
Omitted — what each side leaves out

Unpacked

Left-leaning coverage has not published this story. Right-leaning coverage reports that Jared Kushner denied a forthcoming book's claim he had access to foreign slush funds, and that his lawyer intends to sue. The book alleges access to more than $2 billion. Kushner said the charges "never happened" and that they never surfaced in earlier investigations. A reader of left-leaning outlets therefore misses both the published excerpt and the on-the-record rebuttal. Right-leaning outlets split on what to put first. Daily Caller leads with a purported Russian hack of Kushner's phone said to have exposed the accounts, while the Washington Examiner leads with the promise of legal action and gives the alleged transfers less space. Daily Caller also notes another outlet withdrew related reporting after identifying "significant factual questions" about the deals. What, if anything, did U.S. ethics or tax officials find when they reviewed Kushner's foreign-account disclosures for the years the book describes?
Bottom line

Kushner's lawyer told Daily Caller "there are no bank accounts." Left-leaning coverage has not reported the denial at all.

The receipts — 5 facts one side's coverage lacks
  • An upcoming book alleges Kushner had access to more than $2 billion in slush funds from Middle Eastern leaders numberin Daily Caller, CBS News · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Kushner's counsel said the book's central allegation is false because there are no bank accounts official statementin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • Kushner said he provided over 30 hours of testimony and that none of these allegations ever surfaced numberin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • The author wrote that undisclosed access to the Alpha account may have violated U.S. law contextin Daily Caller · absent from left-leaning coverage
  • White House communications director Steven Cheung said the book is complete fiction official statementin CBS News · absent from left-leaning coverage
The Right View
Right-leaning outlets including the Daily Caller and Washington Examiner have reported Cole’s allegations of a phone hack and a multi-billion-dollar foreign-money web, then given substantial space to Kushner’s on-the-record denial, Mizelle’s threat of litigation, the lack of documentary proof, and the Jerusalem Post’s removal of its story. Center-leaning CBS News carried the same Vanity Fair excerpt without independent verification, summarizing claims of Dutch and Russian intelligence access, UAE and Saudi accounts, and purported transfers involving Azerbaijan and Israel, while prominently quoting Kushner’s rebuttal and Cheung’s statement that the book is “complete fiction” built on unnamed sources.
Our Take (balanced)
The Vanity Fair excerpt and Kushner’s denial are established; the underlying claims of a hacked phone and more than $2 billion in foreign slush funds remain alleged and uncorroborated. Cole names specific people, countries, and round-number sums, but the published account rests on unnamed sources and a single book excerpt—no bank records, wires, account numbers, or independent confirmation have been produced, CBS News did not verify the excerpt, and the Jerusalem Post withdrew related coverage over factual questions. That makes the story thin on checkable evidence even though the accusations are specific. No left-leaning outlet has reported this. Watch for primary documents, named corroboration, official confirmation or refutation of the intelligence narrative, and whether threatened legal action proceeds.

7 sources

More stories

The week's bottom lines, in your inbox

One email a week: the five stories that mattered and what they actually mean. Free.