近期，關於美國前總統川普的女婿賈里德．庫什納（Jared Kushner）與中東資金往來的新聞，在美國政壇與商界引起極大爭議。事情的核心在於，庫什納在卸任白宮高級顧問後，成立自己的投資公司Affinity Partners，並從沙烏地阿拉伯公共投資基金（PIF）獲得大筆注資，金額高達二十億美元。後來又有來自卡達主權基金及阿布達比資金的注入，使得這家基金的資產管理規模大幅增加，甚至突破了十億甚至數十億美元的水準。這樣的背景，使得庫什納如今既是資金操盤手，又被川普重新賦予涉及中東事務的角色，自然引來外界對利益衝突的強烈質疑。

在媒體的報導中，除了資金來源的問題外，最引人注目的莫過於近期電子遊戲巨頭 EA（Electronic Arts）被財團以約五百五十億美元收購並私有化的交易。這筆收購案的資金主力來自沙烏地的主權基金、美國私募基金 Silver Lake，以及庫什納的 Affinity Partners。多份報導指出，庫什納在這場交易裡並非單純的被動投資者，而是重要的牽線人與推動者。他在擔任白宮顧問期間便已與沙烏地王儲穆罕默德．本．薩勒曼建立密切關係，如今又將這些政治人脈轉化為商業操作的槓桿。外界因此懷疑，這樣的資金與權力交錯，會不會讓中東國家透過投資滲透美國娛樂與媒體產業，同時也加深了「政治與金錢交換」的疑慮。

在白宮例行記者會上，當有記者提問庫什納在獲得中東數十億美元資金後，是否仍適合由川普安排負責卡達等國的政策或外交事務時，白宮發言人據傳情緒激動，甚至反嗆記者「你卑鄙」。雖然這段對話的真實性尚待更多來源佐證，但從輿論發酵的角度來看，這句話更突顯了白宮面對外界質疑時的緊繃態度。因為問題的核心其實很清楚：一名曾直接涉入美國對中東政策制定的人，如今成為依賴中東資金壯大的基金負責人，這是否構成利益衝突？

批評者認為，這不僅是道德問題，更是制度漏洞的體現。美國政治中常見的「旋轉門」現象，即官員卸任後旋即進入與前職責密切相關的行業，可能帶來政策傾斜的風險。以庫什納為例，他當年負責推動美國對中東的戰略、協調阿以和平計畫，如今卻接受來自同一地區的鉅額資金，這讓外界懷疑中東國家是否藉此方式購買影響力。尤其在當前國際格局中，中東的石油與主權基金正在積極進軍體育、娛樂、遊戲產業，以「軟實力」改善自身國際形象。EA 交易被視為這一戰略的一部分，庫什納的角色更讓整件事蒙上了政治色彩。

另一方面，支持者則辯稱，庫什納的經驗與人脈恰恰能為美國爭取更多投資與經濟利益。他在白宮時期推動了《亞伯拉罕協議》，打通以色列與阿拉伯國家關係，證明他能善用自身人脈。如今如果能在經濟與投資層面發揮作用，未必是壞事。但問題在於，這種角色混淆是否能在制度上被嚴格監管？美國政府是否能保證公共政策決策不受私人利益的影響？

總體而言，庫什納基金與中東資金的結合，再加上 EA 這樣舉世矚目的收購案，使得他成為外界檢視「金錢與權力糾纏」的焦點人物。對於川普而言，讓庫什納繼續負責卡達等中東事務，固然能利用其人脈優勢，但也無可避免地會面臨國內外輿論對利益衝突與透明度的質疑。從目前的情勢來看，這將是川普新任期內最敏感、也最難擺脫的爭議之一。

Recently, Jared Kushner, the son-in-law of former U.S. President Donald Trump, has once again become the center of political and business controversy due to his deep financial ties with Middle Eastern capital. After leaving his post as a senior White House adviser, Kushner established his own private equity firm, Affinity Partners. The fund’s initial capital came largely from Saudi Arabia’s Public Investment Fund (PIF), which invested around $2 billion. Later, additional injections from Qatar’s sovereign wealth fund and Abu Dhabi investors further expanded Affinity’s assets under management, reportedly pushing it well beyond the billion-dollar threshold. This dual identity—as both a political insider and a money manager tied to Gulf states—has raised pressing questions about conflicts of interest, particularly as Trump is said to be considering him for renewed responsibilities over Middle Eastern affairs, including Qatar.

The controversy intensified following the blockbuster deal in which video game giant Electronic Arts (EA) was taken private in a transaction worth roughly $55 billion. The takeover was financed by a consortium including Saudi Arabia’s PIF, private equity firm Silver Lake, and Kushner’s Affinity Partners. Reports revealed that Kushner played more than a passive role: he personally brokered connections between EA and Gulf investors, and even stepped in when negotiations hit obstacles. Critics argue that his close ties to Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, cultivated during his White House years, are now being leveraged for business gains. For many, this raised concerns that Middle Eastern governments are using sovereign wealth funds to extend influence into U.S. entertainment and media, with Kushner acting as a bridge between political power and financial capital.

The White House was asked about this at a press briefing, when a reporter questioned whether it was appropriate for Kushner to manage Middle Eastern policy after taking billions from the same region. According to some reports, the spokesperson lashed out at the journalist as “despicable,” though this exchange has not been fully verified. Regardless, the incident illustrates the sensitivity of the issue: Can someone who directly profited from Gulf money be trusted to handle U.S. policy in the same region?

Critics argue that the situation epitomizes the so-called “revolving door” problem, where government officials quickly move into private roles tied to their former responsibilities. Kushner once oversaw U.S. strategy toward the Middle East, including spearheading the Abraham Accords between Israel and Arab states. Now, the same region’s sovereign funds are among his largest financial backers. Even if no policy favoritism occurs, the perception of influence-buying alone undermines public trust. Observers also worry that these investments may represent a broader Gulf strategy of “soft power,” using sports, gaming, and media acquisitions to reshape their global image. The EA deal is widely seen as part of this effort.

Supporters, however, argue that Kushner’s connections could help secure foreign investment for the U.S. and that his diplomatic experience is an asset rather than a liability. They point to his past success in fostering agreements between Israel and Arab states. Yet this defense doesn’t address the core concern: whether U.S. foreign policy decisions can remain free from the appearance—or reality—of private financial entanglements.

In short, Kushner’s dual role as a Gulf-funded investor and a figure once again linked to U.S. Middle East policy creates an unavoidable controversy. For Trump, relying on Kushner’s regional connections may bring certain advantages, but it also exposes his administration to allegations of conflicts of interest and foreign influence. The EA takeover, coupled with billions in Gulf investments into Affinity Partners, ensures that Kushner will remain a lightning rod for debate about money, power, and politics in Washington.