Could Kushner face sanctions, registration, or disclosure requirements (e.g., FARA) for participating in negotiations on behalf of foreign interests?
Executive summary
Jared Kushner has been the subject of calls from senior Democrats urging a DOJ special counsel over possible FARA failures tied to millions in payments from foreign governments—Wyden and Raskin say Saudi payments to Kushner total at least $87 million and argue that his U.S. political activities could trigger FARA registration and disclosure requirements [1] [2]. At the same time, DOJ has been actively revising and expanding how it interprets and enforces FARA—publishing an NPRM on January 2, 2025 and signaling a tougher enforcement posture in 2025—which raises the practical prospect of heightened scrutiny, potential retroactive registration, and civil or criminal exposure in borderline cases [3] [4] [5].
1. Why Kushner’s critics say FARA could apply: the core allegation
Lawmakers and watchdogs contend Kushner accepted substantial payments tied to foreign governments while continuing to engage in U.S. political activity, and that combination is the classic statute trigger for FARA registration and disclosure; Senators Ron Wyden and Representative Jamie Raskin formally urged Attorney General Merrick Garland to appoint a special counsel citing Kushner’s failure to disclose under FARA and their assessment that Saudi Arabia paid him about $87 million since June 2021 [1] [2].
2. What FARA actually requires and how it’s enforced today
FARA requires persons acting as agents of a “foreign principal” to register with DOJ and disclose political activities, contributions and payments; the FARA Unit has increasingly focused on registration, inspections and prosecutions in recent years and DOJ officials have signaled continued emphasis into 2025 [3] [6]. The Department has also proposed regulatory changes to clarify exemptions and tighten rules around commercial and political activity, meaning conduct once viewed as exempt could face fresh scrutiny [4] [7].
3. The statutory and regulatory fault lines that matter for Kushner
Two fault lines matter: whether Kushner was “acting as an agent” for a foreign principal, and whether the activities were political or predominantly served U.S. commercial interests. DOJ’s recent advisory opinions and the NPRM indicate the FARA Unit is narrowing commercial exemptions and taking a stricter view of political activities that serve foreign interests—changes that make borderline cases riskier for high-profile figures [3] [4] [7].
4. Possible legal consequences: registration, civil remedies and criminal exposure
If DOJ determines someone acted as an unregistered agent, remedies include compelled retroactive registration, civil injunctions and, in some cases, criminal prosecution; DOJ has used injunctions and prosecutions in high-profile matters historically and commentators warn FARA is “by no means the only arrow” DOJ uses—underscoring both civil and criminal avenues [8] [9]. Proposed regulatory tightening increases the chance that previously unregistered activities could be deemed non-exempt and subject to retroactive reporting [4] [7].
5. Political context amplifies enforcement risk
Kushner’s high visibility and ongoing ties to U.S. political campaigns elevate the political and enforcement incentives: Wyden and Raskin explicitly tied Kushner’s proximity to former President Trump to their request for a special counsel, arguing high-profile involvement merits enforcement [2] [1]. DOJ’s public push for clearer rules and more registrations in 2025 means politically salient targets are likely to draw closer attention [3] [6].
6. Limits of the public record and legal uncertainty
Available sources document the allegations, the payments lawmakers cite, and DOJ’s regulatory agenda, but they do not present a DOJ finding that Kushner violated FARA or an indictment—those steps are not in the current reporting [1] [2] [4]. Whether his specific activities meet the statute’s legal tests depends on facts not detailed in these sources—contract terms, who directed activity, and whether the activities served “predominantly” foreign interests—questions the NPRM itself seeks to clarify [7] [4].
7. Practical takeaways: how Kushner could be exposed and how he could avoid penalties
Under current law and DOJ practice, exposure comes from: a finding that he acted as an agent of a foreign principal; that covered activity was political or intended to influence U.S. policy; and failure to register and disclose payments—any one of which can trigger retroactive registration, civil enforcement, or criminal referral [3] [8]. Compliance pathways include voluntary registration, conspicuous disclosure of foreign principals in materials, and legal defenses based on commercial exemptions—though DOJ’s NPRM proposes narrowing those exemptions [7] [4].