What role did Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump play in shaping policy during Trump’s previous administration, and how does that compare to today?
Executive summary
Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump served as close, unconventional senior advisers in Donald Trump’s first administration with broad, sometimes idiosyncratic policy portfolios—from Middle East diplomacy to workforce and COVID-19 initiatives—and wielded unusually direct access to the president that translated into tangible policy influence and controversies over conflicts of interest and nepotism [1] [2] [3]. In the second Trump term they chose not to take formal posts but Kushner has remained an influential behind-the-scenes emissary on Middle East diplomacy while Ivanka has largely opted out of an official role, a shift from formal power to informal, external influence that preserves access without government office [2] [4] [5].
1. What they did inside the White House: portfolios and achievements
Kushner operated as a senior adviser with an unusually wide brief—brokering the Abraham Accords and leading Middle East outreach, helping craft a new North American trade agreement, pushing government innovation through the Office of American Innovation, and taking on projects from the border wall to portions of the COVID-19 response—while Ivanka steered a narrower, more public-facing portfolio on workforce development, women’s empowerment and paid family leave [2] [1] [6] [7]. Reporting credits Kushner particularly with negotiating normalization agreements in the Middle East and with being a trusted conduit for the president on high-priority initiatives; Ballotpedia and Reuters summarize his role in trade, the 2026 World Cup bid, vaccine development discussions, and Middle East peace efforts [2] [6] [5].
2. How influence translated into policy outcomes—and limits
Their proximity to the president meant ideas they favored could gain purchase quickly: Kushner’s push helped preserve LGBT contractor protections early in the administration after Ivanka and he advocated for language that reversed an initial executive-order plan, and Kushner’s Office of American Innovation served as a channel for private-sector fixes to government operations [6] [1]. Yet influence had limits—critics and some White House officials chafed at their informal standing, and many initiatives they touched were collaborative or sidelined by Cabinet agencies and staff chiefs seeking to reassert institutional control [1] [3].
3. Ethics, conflicts and the nepotism debate
From the start their appointments as family members drew legal and ethical scrutiny: watchdogs argued the anti‑nepotism statute and conflict-of-interest concerns were implicated by Kushner and Ivanka’s roles and their substantial outside income and investments raised allegations that policy leverage overlapped with private financial interests, notably around Opportunity Zones and Kushner’s Cadre stake [3] [8] [9]. American Oversight’s investigations later documented Ivanka’s use of personal email for government business and flagged broader boundary-pushing in travel and influence [10].
4. Style of influence: access, networks and dealmaking
Their power derived less from formal authority and more from trusted, direct access to the president and Kushner’s dealmaker profile and external networks—relationships with regional leaders, funders and media executives—which allowed him to operate as an unofficial emissary and sometimes to override State Department efforts, as during the Qatar blockade dispute where Kushner sided with Saudi and Emirati positions [11] [12] [5]. Supporters see a pragmatic, results-oriented fixer; critics see inexperienced family operatives leveraging intimacy for outsized influence [1] [3].
5. Comparison to today: formal post vs. informal power
In the second Trump term both chose distance from formal White House roles: Ivanka opted out of rejoining the administration and Kushner refrained from taking an official job, instead advising from Miami and operating through private-sector platforms such as Affinity Partners while remaining a key informal conduit on Middle East normalization and peacemaking efforts—preserving influence without the constraints or scrutiny of a federal post [2] [4] [12]. That posture reduces some legal exposure but raises fresh transparency questions about private-sector deals and back-channel diplomacy; outlets report Kushner continuing to be summoned for delicate diplomacy, a model of “adviser from afar” rather than officeholder [5] [9].
6. Bottom line: continuity of influence, change in form
Substantively, Kushner and Ivanka moved between formal power and private influence, leaving a record of concrete policy touchpoints—Abraham Accords, Opportunity Zones input, trade and innovation initiatives—while drawing persistent ethics criticism [2] [8] [6]. The main difference today is that their clout is exercised largely outside government structures: Kushner remains a central, if unofficial, actor on Middle East strategy and Ivanka has stepped back from an active policy role, a recalibration that preserves access and influence but shifts the optics and legal parameters compared with their prior White House positions [2] [4].