A published book excerpt says Dutch military intelligence watched Jared Kushner’s iPhone activity and saw accounts tied to hundreds of millions of dollars move through the Middle East, while Kushner flatly denies it.
Story Highlights
- Vanity Fair published claims that Dutch spies monitored Kushner’s iPhone activity in 2018.
- The report links the access chain to a Russian military-intelligence operative’s server.
- Alleged screen views pointed to large sums at banks in the United Arab Emirates and Israel.
- Kushner and his lawyer called the story false and said no such accounts exist.
What the new reporting says happened
Vanity Fair published an excerpt from Matthew Cole’s book alleging a rare window into Jared Kushner’s iPhone. The account says Dutch military intelligence obtained screenshots from a server tied to a Russian military-intelligence figure and later used a phone flaw to observe Kushner’s screen in early 2018. The reporting links what was seen to secret diplomacy and money flows, including logins to a United Arab Emirates-linked account and messages with senior Israeli figures.
The excerpt describes an access chain rather than a vague hack. It points to a Russian server with screenshots, a Russian military-intelligence operative, and the Dutch military as the watchers. That level of specificity matters because it assigns actions to named institutions. It also raises a hard question both parties care about: if foreign services saw a senior White House adviser’s activity, what did they learn, and how might it have shaped their leverage?
The money figures that grabbed attention
The reporting states that the screen views aligned with accounts allegedly holding very large sums. It references about seven hundred fifty million dollars at First Abu Dhabi Bank and about one billion dollars in Israel, as part of more than two billion dollars tied to Kushner-linked accounts. The excerpt also describes a claimed signatory role for Kushner on an Emirati charity’s bank account. These numbers and details are the core of why the story is drawing intense focus across the political spectrum.
These financial claims land in a wider debate about foreign money and American policy. Prior congressional inquiries and policy analyses flagged the risks when former officials raise or manage funds sourced largely from foreign governments in the Middle East. Researchers reported that a major Kushner-managed fund drew the vast majority of its early capital from Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates, highlighting gaps in conflict-of-interest rules after public service. That context explains why the alleged banking details, if accurate, would matter for national interests.
Kushner’s categorical denial
Kushner rejected the story in strong terms. He called the claims “completely insane,” said they “never happened,” and criticized the lack of presented records. He and his lawyer said there were no such accounts and no transfers, and faulted the report for not supplying bank statements, account numbers, or dates. News coverage reproduced those statements and noted the direct dispute with the book’s account, placing a bright line between the author’s claims and Kushner’s denial.
Jared Kushner reacts to stunning allegations about phone hack, spies and Middle East money transfers https://t.co/QzkK71o5wS
— j mahmood (@jmahmood58) October 23, 2026
One brief caveat is clear in the public record: the book excerpt and follow-on coverage do not publish the raw screenshots, device logs, or banking records that would normally settle each point. That said, the story’s thrust rests on named reporting, concrete figures, and described institutions. Readers should separate two issues: what the reporting alleges about 2018 device access and money, and what has been documented for outside review so far.
Why both the left and right see stakes here
Americans across parties are tired of rules that seem to shield elites. Conservatives worry about foreign entanglements and policy sold to the highest bidder. Liberals worry about money in politics and favoritism for insiders. This report touches both nerves. If foreign services watched a senior adviser’s phone, that points to security lapses. If huge sums moved while policy was at stake, that raises conflict concerns. Either scenario suggests a government failing to police itself.
What to watch next
Watch for any official statements from Dutch authorities, banking regulators, or United States agencies. Look for documentary records that confirm or refute specific account details and dates. Track whether Congress seeks testimony or records from the author, banks, or involved officials. Prior investigations into post-government foreign funding showed how hard these cases are to verify, but they also showed that persistence can surface meaningful facts for the public.
Sources:
archive.is, vanityfair.com, en.nuns.rs
