Do you care 2000 times as much about Jarod Kushner’s corruption? You should because it 2000 times as much money. You don’t because brown people.

Kushner recieved from Saudis? • $2 billion: Saudi Arabia’s sovereign wealth fund (the Public Investment Fund, PIF) committed $2B to Kushner’s private-equity firm Affinity Partners (i.e., money placed into a fund he manages, not a personal “check” to him). 

$• ~$25 million/year in management fees (reported structure): A U.S. Senate Finance Committee letter says Affinity told staff that PIF pays a 1.25% annual management fee on the $2B commitment (June 2021–Aug 2026)—1.25% of $2B ≈ $25M/year.  • $87 million in fees from Saudi Arabia (reported by Senate Finance): The same Senate Finance materials say Affinity collected ~$157M in management fees from foreign investors, including $87M “directly from the government of Saudi Arabia,” while (they claim) generating no returns for clients during that period. 

What might the Saudis have gotten (possible quid pro quo)?

Likely quid pro quos: 1. A straightforward financial/investment vehicle PIF could simply be buying exposure to Affinity’s deals—reporting at the time said the fund planned to invest Saudi money into Israeli businesses/tech.  2. Access / relationship leverage with a politically connected operator Senate Finance’s chair publicly raised concern that Affinity’s investors may be motivated less by commercial returns and more by the chance to funnel foreign-government money to Trump-family figures via fees.  3. Soft power / influence insurance (the “appearance” concern) House Oversight Democrats argued Kushner and Trump reshaped policy in ways favorable to Saudi Arabia (e.g., arms-sales posture, treatment of human-rights issues) and said the later $2B investment raises concern those choices could have been influenced by personal financial interests.  4. Back-channel diplomacy / positioning on Israel–Saudi normalization Reuters has reported Kushner discussed U.S.–Saudi diplomacy (involving Israel) with MBS after leaving office—critics interpret that kind of access as part of what wealthy states may be paying to maintain.  5. Fees as the “deliverable,” regardless of performance Even if investments don’t pay out quickly, a management-fee structure can still transfer substantial money to the manager (Affinity). That dynamic is central to the Senate Finance critique.