Report alleges Dutch intelligence hacked Jared Kushner’s phone

Dutch intelligence allegedly hacked Jared Kushner’s phone during Donald Trump’s first administration, according to a book excerpt published by Vanity Fair. The allegation concerns surveillance of a presidential adviser whose responsibilities included sensitive negotiations in the Middle East, but it has not been independently established in the material reviewed.

The October 22 excerpt is by Matthew Cole. It alleges Dutch operatives obtained screen visibility by early 2018 after discovering Russian-held screenshots, and observed access to a UAE bank account. Those details represent the author’s account, rather than an official acknowledgment of an intelligence operation.

Kushner rejected the allegations as fabricated, The Daily Beast reported. That denial is central to the story: an allegation about covert surveillance, even when presented in a published investigation, should not be treated as a confirmed account of what an intelligence service did.

Kushner’s diplomatic responsibilities during the period are documented separately in public records. His own website identifies his tenure as senior adviser to Trump as running from 2017 to 2021 and describes Middle East negotiations as a major part of his White House work. That public role provides context for the allegation without substantiating it.

A White House readout dated June 21, 2017, records Kushner meeting Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu alongside other American officials in Jerusalem. It says the discussions addressed Israeli priorities, regional security and efforts toward an Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement. The readout also described planned talks with Palestinian leaders and subsequent briefings in Washington.

Those diplomatic efforts later included the Abraham Accords, whose declaration was issued on September 15, 2020. The document welcomed progress toward diplomatic relations between Israel and its regional neighbors, emphasizing cooperation and dialogue. At the signing ceremony, participating leaders publicly recognized Kushner’s contribution, according to the archived White House transcript.

That background explains the significance of any credible allegation that a foreign intelligence service could observe his device. Access to an adviser’s screen could potentially expose information beyond private communications, depending on how the device was used. This is a potential security implication, not evidence that particular diplomatic material was obtained or that the reported intrusion occurred as described.

The key distinction remains between Kushner’s documented government work and the disputed surveillance account. Public records establish the former; they do not verify the latter. Further assessment would require independently verifiable evidence or authoritative disclosures about the alleged operation. Until then, the account should remain clearly attributed to its author and presented alongside Kushner’s rejection, rather than repeated as an established finding.